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: ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY BEFORE AND DURING COVID-19 LOCKDOWN, USING WEBCAM TIME-LAPSE FROM CRACOW AND MACHINE LEARNING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The comments have been answered. The reviewers find that the responses are convincing.
Experimental design: The experimental design has been significantly improved.
Validity of the findings: The reviewers think that the comparison with different state of the art approaches, especially in the same that set,  is very important. Nevertheless, we understand that in this type of applications, comparison requires time and performing materials. Hence, we suppose the comparison given in the paper is relatively enough.
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: ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY BEFORE AND DURING COVID-19 LOCKDOWN, USING WEBCAM TIME-LAPSE FROM CRACOW AND MACHINE LEARNING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: Although the suggested improvement for the original YOLO model is simple, I think this research might be helpful for a specific group of readers who are interested in pedestrian detection.
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: EFFECTS OF EARLY LIFE STAGE EXPOSURE OF LARGEMOUTH BASS TO ATRAZINE OR A MODEL ESTROGEN (17Α-ETHINYLESTRADIOL)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is generally well written and professional, but there are some awkward phrasings throughout the manuscript that could be revised. The best example is the introduction of intersex condition on lines 53-59. The discussion of intersex could also be tempered considering the inability of the study to identify developed testes in this age of LMB and therefore intersex gonads in LMB.

The cited references are appropriate for species; however, one topic that would add to the manuscript would be to include a discussion of proposed mechanisms of action for ATR. There are manuscripts that suggest that ATR does not interact with the classical estrogen receptor, which would need to be mentioned due to the comparison with EE2. Also, there is research to suggest that ATR changes the expression of Star in rat granulosa cells, which should be mentioned due to the similarity in results in this manuscript. The lack of mention of prior mechanistic work is the greatest weakness of the manuscript but would be relatively simple to address.

The manuscript is well organized and raw data is shared in the supplemental files. In general, the figures are relevant and high quality; however, there are a couple of notes and suggestions that might be helpful.
1.	Figure 1 – No comment
2.	Figure 2 – The legend could be reworked to include the magnification during the description. For example “Example of gonad development at 17 dps at 100x (A) and 400x (B) magnification, 33 dps at 40x (C) and 400x (D) magnification…”. I think this would help clarify the images. Also, the legend should mention which group the images are from. Are these control fish or exposed fish? Finally, image F is a little dark and out of focus. Is there a replacement image that could be used, especially considering it doesn’t seem to match the boxed area in E.
3.	Figure 3 – BVC could be defined in the legend to help explain the axis titles.
4.	Figure 4 – This figure is busy, but very informative. I think it does a good job of presenting a lot of data.
5.	Figure 5 – I think this figure could be removed because it seems to not add additional information compared to figure 4.
6.	Figure 6 – The error bars need to be defined. Also, some error bars are very long on the bottom compared to the top and this may need to be corrected. I would also suggest defining the gene names in the figure legend. RPM on the Y-axis needs to be defined in the figure legend as well.
7.	Both table 1 and 2 look fine.

The manuscript is self-contained and has relevant results.
Experimental design: The research appears to be original primary research within the aims and scope of the journal. The research questions are reasonably well defined but are relevant and meaningful. The manuscript does address a gap in the literature (effects of developmental exposure of LMB to ATR and EE2), and nicely defends the relevance of the study in the introduction and discussion, even if the claim of identifying molecular initiating events is a slight overstatement. It would be more appropriate to say ‘pathways’ rather than ‘molecular initiating events’.

With respect to the materials and methods, overall, methods are well described and detailed. A few specific comments are given below:
1.	Although it is common in the literature to only include a solvent control, the inclusion of a solvent free control (normal tank water) in addition to the solvent control is the best practice.
2.	Were all 4 replicates from the same original batch of fry (tank replicates), or were they from different batches of fry (true biological replicates)?
3.	More details into the types of tanks and size of tanks would be helpful.
4.	Some of the details of methods are split over two sections. For example, it is unclear how samples were preserved for histologic analysis (lines 193-194), until the following section (205-206). It would be more clear to explain the details the first time the method is mentioned and revise the second mention to not repeat information.
5.	Which samples were fixed in Z-fix and which were preserved in PAXgene tissue fix? Z-fix contains formaldehyde and PAXgene advertises that it does not. The different fixation methods will have different “normal” artifacts which could possibly influence histologic interpretation.
6.	How was the p-value for differential expressed genes calculated (line 279)?
7.	Why was no minimum fold-change threshold used (lines 281-282)?
Validity of the findings: The data and findings are sufficient for the journal standards and appear to be robust and statistically sound (minus the lack of method mentioned for differentially expressed genes). Overall, there are a few over statements (lines 98-99, 392-394), that should be tempered or clarified.

The discussion overall is generally well supported by the cited references (though a citation would be useful around lines 418-421), but could be expanded by the addition of a discussion of ATR related gene expression changes in other species or models. It would be important to note of some of the genes were differentially expressed in other species after ATR exposure.

One more thing to note is that ATR, like many EDCs, has been associated with non-monotonic dose responses. Important genes/pathways may have been missed due to the requirement of having DE in both 1 and 100 ug/L. Separate analyses may provide even more information.

A discussion of the significance of star, cyp11a2, vasa, wnt5b, cyp1a, and samhd1 would also be helpful to include. What are the full names of these genes and what are their functions?

The discussion of differentially expressed genes (lines 4432-436) raised some good points and could be expanded. Additionally, it should be made clear that intersex gonads could not be identified due to the developmental age of the LMB and lack of testicular development.
Additional comments: The manuscript has some areas that could be improved (see other sections), but overall is a nice, well-contained manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF EARLY LIFE STAGE EXPOSURE OF LARGEMOUTH BASS TO ATRAZINE OR A MODEL ESTROGEN (17Α-ETHINYLESTRADIOL)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript by Leet and coauthors analyzes the effects of exposure to atrazine and ethinylestradiol on largemouth bass early life stages. The authors aim to understand the potential contribution of endocrine disrupting compounds on bass reproductive dysfunction. The paper is very well written and easy to read and provides novel information that could be useful for the management of bass species. The exposures performed here are extremely labor and time intensive and will definitely provide valuable information to understand endocrine-disrupting effects on bass populations. I do have a few minor comments that might help clarifying the paper.
- Please add locations at least state, to the areas of interest when possible
- Please add reference/link to the zebrafish genome version
- Line 371: Danio rerio
- Please add city, state, to the companies used (ie Qiagen, Illumina, etc)
Experimental design: - How many replicates were used for RNAseq? Line 114 mentions 4 fish and line 271 mentions 5
- Please add number reads/sample on the RNAseq results
- What was the quality of the RNA used?
- What was the rationale for not using a minimum fold change threshold?
- Was there any attempt to blast the sequences against largemouth bass sequences from the database, or was it considered that might not provide good enough coverage?
- Figure 5: please add more details to color legend
- While the gonads might still be undifferentiated we are likely talking about two quite different tissues (male and female gonads). What was the rationale behind analyzing them together?
Validity of the findings: no additional comment
Additional comments: This paper provides very valuable information on the potential adverse effects of endocrine disruptors to bass populations, particularly during the window of sex differentiation.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF EARLY LIFE STAGE EXPOSURE OF LARGEMOUTH BASS TO ATRAZINE OR A MODEL ESTROGEN (17Α-ETHINYLESTRADIOL)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, this is a well-written, interesting manuscript that clearly lays out a gap in understanding on this topic, defines objectives, outlines results, and puts into context the implications of the results. There are a few sections that may be clarified to aid in reader comprehension, and a few grammatical errors that may be easily fixed with a thorough proof-reading.

For example:
Line 53: "A high prevalence... have been observed..." should say "...has been observed..." to match the singular subject, “prevalence.”

Paragraph beginning on Line 73: Although this paper is clearly about fish, consider clarifying which taxonomic groups you are referring to in the topic sentence, since reproductive dysfunction and EDC exposure are issues in other taxa as well.

Lines 82-84: "There have been many studies evaluating the effects of EE2 on various fish species at different life stages... However, the exact mechanism of this effect has not been identified..."
To what effect, specifically, are you referring for which the mechanism has not been identified?
Or, did you mean to say "...mechanisms of these effects have not been identified..."?

Lines 94-95: Consider replacing “…changes in gene regulation…” to “…differences in gene regulation…” as the way you have it worded could imply to the reader that multiple time-points were sampled for gene regulation per treatment group.

Line 420: I think “far-reaching” should be hyphenated since it is used as an adjective.

Lines 470-472: The sentence beginning with “Samhd…” should be re-worded for clarity.

Lines 484-485: The sentence beginning with “From this analysis…” is unclear. Consider re-wording.

In the discussion, there are some sentences in which it may be initially unclear whether the authors are referring to previous studies or the current study. Consider adding some clarification.
Experimental design: Was vitellogenin expression (either protein or transcripts) analyzed in these fish? If so, this should be discussed in the manuscript. This is a commonly used biomarker of estrogen exposure in fish and would be valuable information to assess the effects of the EE2 exposure, as well as the potential estrogen-like effects of atrazine.

What do we know about the history of this LMB population? For example, is there any history of intersex, or estrogen exposure of predecessors? How long has the population been sustaining itself without re-stocking? (i.e. How genetically diverse/inbred are these fish?). Since there are genetic/epigenetic factors to consider, I think a short background about the site/population would be helpful. Consider adding a sentence or two to help the reader understand the population a bit better.

Approximately how many clutches of eggs were collected? Do you suspect that the eggs came from multiple females? The manuscript states the eggs were “recently deposited.” What exactly does that mean? Also, were the eggs mixed together or randomized prior to stocking the exposure aquaria? Consider adding a sentence or two to clarify these questions for the reader.

Exposure and chemical analysis methods section needs some clarification. From what I can see, there is no mention of how EE2 solutions were prepared. This needs to be addressed. Also, I’m assuming (since controls were 0.0001% ethanol) that ATR and EE2 was initially dissolved in ethanol? Please clarify.

Lines 143-146: This sentence is a bit unclear. Were fish removed during chloramine treatments? Were tanks treated with 10ppm chloramine continually after the first four weeks, or still just twice a week?
Validity of the findings: Although methods are mostly clearly described, there are important issues that should be addressed:
My biggest concern is with the histological methods used for sexing the juvenile fish. Presumed “male” gonads appear to be underdeveloped, and thus difficult, if not impossible to confidently identify the sex. In lines 327-329, the authors report only 70% agreement among blinded readers, which illustrates the potential for ambiguity. Methods used to identify females are pretty well-defined, and the representative histological images seem to show obvious ovarian tissue. However, identification of males was determined solely by the presence of germ cells and absence of primary oocytes (as stated in Lines 227-227), yet the only characteristic that differentiates a “male” from “inconclusive sex identification” appears to be the germ cells which may also be present in underdeveloped females, particularly if portions of the gonad were missed by histological sectioning. The overall area of gonadal tissue in the representative “male” histological images is very small (~50 x 100um, Fig. 2F). I am curious what criteria were used in evaluating these slides? Was there a certain amount of gonadal tissue area required for sex determination? How many germ cells were required in order to be considered a “male” vs. “inconclusive”? If only one germ cell was present, was that individual determined to be a male? In Lines 331-332, one individual in the high EE2 group is identified as a “presumptive male,” but elsewhere in the paper, males are not described as “presumptive.” Is there something unique about this individual other than its EE2 treatment, or are all of the “males” only presumed so? Please clarify. With my current understanding of these methods, I am not fully convinced by the determining characteristics of presumed male fish. These methods and definitions should be clarified for the reader, and the possibility of false identification of males should be discussed, since this could have an impact on the results and implications of the study.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECT OF LONG-TERM VOLLEYBALL TRAINING ON THE LEVEL OF SOMATIC PARAMETERS OF FEMALE VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS IN VARIOUS AGE CATEGORIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: General comment
This an interesting study on volleyball and the authors used correct scientific methods. Considering the popularity of this sport especially among female athletes, the findings have large practical applications. A novelty of this study - compared to previous studies - is the use of control group. I would recommend it for publication once the authors addressed a few concerns.

Specific comments
1.	Text: Use paragraphs of 8-12 lines to improve the readability.
2.	Abstract: Reduce the part of aims and methods.
3.	Abstract: Increase the part of results adding more numbers, means, SD, p values, effect sizes.
4.	Abstract: Revise the conclusions (l.30-33) to represent the specific findings of this study.
5.	l.38-41: It is not necessary. Start directly with volleyball.
6.	l.63-66: Add references.
7.	l.87: Add 2-3 sentences with references presenting the rationale of this study, i.e. what is missing in the existed literature and why it is important to study it.
8.	l.87-89: Revise the aim. The aim is whether age-related differences vary between volleyball and control group.
9.	l.89: Add hypotheses and references.
10.	l.92: When the study was conducted?
11.	l.120: Where it took place?
12.	l.223: The discussion should be revised totally. Use a first paragraph to summarize the findings, then start each paragraph with one of your findings, present if it agrees or differs with the literature and explain why.
13.	l.295: Shorten the limitations. Revise this section to ‘limitations, strength and practical applications’ and add these aspects with an emphasis on practical applications.
14.	l.316: Revise the conclusions so they are specific to the findings.
15.	l.332: References: They should be revised in a large part. Many references are inappropriate (e.g. conferences, sites, books, journals with no IF) and they should be replaced by journals with high IF and published in the last 5 years.
16.	l.332: Major literature is missing (e.g. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f8c06, 10.3390/medicina56040159, 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02737, 10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06298-8).


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 EFFECT OF LONG-TERM VOLLEYBALL TRAINING ON THE LEVEL OF SOMATIC PARAMETERS OF FEMALE VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS IN VARIOUS AGE CATEGORIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Basic reporting
a.	The abstract starts with a basic sentence that starts the entire motivation for this study: “Volleyball is often used as an activity for the cultivation of fitness and for influencing body composition (…)”. This statement is provided without any reference to support it. Furthermore, having been a volleyball coach for 20 years, I have never had an athlete engaging in volleyball practice with the goal of improving body composition. There are many potential reasons for a person to start playing volleyball, but improving body composition is likely but be one of the least common.
b.	Overall, we do understand the rationale behind this study and it presents novelty and is – we believe – relevant to understand the real merits of practicing a given sport, even if only analyzing one dimension (in this case, body composition). However, the authors do not always choose the best line of thought. For example, work to rest ratios in volleyball clearly favor the pauses, i.e., for each second of work in the match, the athlete has 4 to 5 seconds of rest. Thus, perhaps in comparison with other team sports, volleyball is not the best example of demanding high levels of fitness and, therefore, might not be the best sport to promote changes in body composition.
c.	In lines 50-52, the argument provided by the authors may even detract from their goal, because having a higher percentage of body fat may protect the joints when landing after a jump.
d.	In lines 63-66, there are very strong statements made, but without any references to support them.
e.	In lines 74-77, there is support for the need of engaging in physical activity…but the argument is made and sustained for children, while this study focused on teenagers.
f.	In lines 84-85, again there are strong statements without any references to support the claims.
g.	English language is clear throughout the document, with only a few minor mistakes that could benefit from a detailed review.
h.	Globally, the theme seems relevant and novel, but is not always properly sustained and the lines of argumentation often do not support the authors’ intentions.
i.	Structure, figures, raw data: authors fulfil PeerJ requirements.
Experimental design: 2.	Experimental design
a.	Research design within scope of the journal. Research question was well defined, but not exactly well supported due to previously mentioned problems with the rationale.
b.	Solid experimental design, and with a big sample. Both groups are well described, as well the experimental conditions. There is detailed information to fully understand the methods and possibly replicate them in the future.
c.	One major flaw is that there was no reporting on weekly caloric intake. This will have a major impact on the findings, as I will describe later.
d.	It is not clear at all how the estrogenic phase of the menstrual cycle was determined for each participant. If 28-day averages were used, they are very flawed, as natural interindividual variability in menstrual cycle can range from 23 to 35 days.
e.	Another huge problem is that there is not reporting of the Typical Error of Measurement for the devices that were used (e.g., bioelectric impedance), nor is there any report of data reliability. This means that trustworthiness of data cannot be assessed and, therefore, casts a major shadow on data interpretation.
f.	Otherwise, the statistical approach seems appropriate.
g.	Overall, points c) and especially e) make it impossible to properly evaluate the actual results of this research.
Validity of the findings: 3.	Validity of the findings
a.	The lack of information concerning weekly caloric intake makes it very difficult to conclude anything about the effects of volleyball in body composition, especially in body fat. In fact, by engaging in a weekly training volume that is way superior to that of the control group, the experimental group will likely have a much greater caloric need. This may be reflected on nutritional habits. Hence, volleyball may diminish body fat, but this effect may be hindered by increased caloric intake to face the demands of a strict training regimen. This fact should be widely recognized by the authors across the manuscript.
b.	Findings cannot be properly interpreted without consideration of factor a), plus there is not information on TEM or ICCs. Therefore, I cannot assess if the findings are valid, because insufficient information appertaining the quality of data has not been provided.
c.	Therefore, conclusions cannot be properly assessed in the current form of this manuscript.
Additional comments: 4.	General comments
a.	Interesting premise, but the rationale has to improve in terms of discourse and referencing.
b.	Crucial information is lacking in the methods sections, compromising any analysis of results and discussion.


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 EFFECT OF LONG-TERM VOLLEYBALL TRAINING ON THE LEVEL OF SOMATIC PARAMETERS OF FEMALE VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS IN VARIOUS AGE CATEGORIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction is easy to read. However, in my opinion, it is necessary to extend existing knowledge on relationship concerning performance and sport practice-related differences. The introduction should include more update references regarding the association between sport-specific training background and physical performance. Moreover, I suggest you to support the following sentence “Regular and adequate training since childhood should not only lead to the development of fitness and motor performance, but also to the development of a series of personal traits of the individuals” including an update reference.

After the purpose statement, please provide a hypothesis for what the authors think the results will yield.
Experimental design: Some important information appears to be presently omitted from the methods section. Further description of the sampling procedure would be helpful for the reader. The recruitment process is a bit unclear. Please explain better how was selected the sample size and how was the data collected. When were the tests administered? Was the time of year, season, and time of day consistent for all subjects sampled? Further explanation about who collected the data is also necessary here. Some important information also appears to be presently omitted from the methods and results section. Have you tested the reliability of your data? If yes, please include the results.
It is not clear who conducted the assessments or whether they were blinded to group allocation.
Validity of the findings: In general, the first paragraph of the discussion should at least state which hypotheses were supported. Then the authors should follow with how their results compare with similar data, and what the authors results adds to the literature (different / unique aspects of the data). Several points are made in the discussion, but it is not clear to this reviewer how results from the current study are novel or add to the literature.
The authors did not discuss what is novel about this research or what it offers in terms of health implications. The authors did not discuss how this research may be disseminated into greater practice. Moreover, the limitations and the strengths of this research were not discussed at all.
Additional comments: While the topic is of interest in its current form it will require a lot of work before publication. The principal aim of this study was to assess the effect of volleyball training of girls at an older school age and adolescent girls on their somatic parameters.
The paper is interesting but there are many examples of poor sentence construction throughout. I accept that this is probably due to English not being the authors’ first language but it would need very careful editing and proof reading prior to publication.


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECT OF LONG-TERM VOLLEYBALL TRAINING ON THE LEVEL OF SOMATIC PARAMETERS OF FEMALE VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS IN VARIOUS AGE CATEGORIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors addressed successfully all my concerns. I recommend its publication in its current form and believe that it will make a major contribution in its field.


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

Input:
Title: COMPARING LOCAL ANCESTRY INFERENCE MODELS IN POPULATIONS OF TWO- AND THREE-WAY ADMIXTURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This is a well written paper which introduced and compared five major local ancestry inference models of two-way and three-way admixture populations.
I have no major concerns, but I do think that there are points need to be revised.

1. Line 93: For “u=0.77”, it would be better to specify the meaning of this statistic.
2. Line 90-94: The authors argued that the PEL population could serve as a reasonable proxy for Native American ancestral population in this study. I do agree that the PEL have more Native American ancestries than other admixed American populations in 1000G, however, I still feel cautious that PEL could be a good reference population for Native Americans. It would be good to find some other populations, but I understand it would be hard by considering of the scale of the data, data merging etc. I think another way to build a good reference panel would be estimating the Native American ancestry for each PEL individual, and then select the first 10% of individuals who has the most Native American ancestry.
3. Line 96 and Table 2: When simulating the admixed populations, the authors fixed the components of each ancestral populations. Please cite the reference papers to prove that these numbers are appropriate to be set.
4. Line 103: I do concern that chromosome 22 may not be a good example here, since it is short and may contain a lot of structural variations. Maybe simulating the first 1-10Mb of Chromosome 1 is a better way to do so.
5. For Figure 6, besides using the correlation coefficient, I would suggest using another statistic (y-axis) to measure the accuracy, e.g. the absolute difference of the estimated ancestries. It is also interesting to explore why the performances were bad in some cases for each software (low values of y-axis).


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: COMPARING LOCAL ANCESTRY INFERENCE MODELS IN POPULATIONS OF TWO- AND THREE-WAY ADMIXTURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study, the performances of five methods for local ancestry estimation were compared: LAMP-LD (2012), RFMix (2013), ELAI (2014), Loter (2018), and MOSAIC (2019), with respect to accuracy, runtime, memory usage, and usability. Authors found that in cases of two-way admixture, each software performs similarly well with RFMix and ELAI having the highest median performance. In three-way admixture, RFMix performs best overall while its runtime scales quadratically.
Experimental design: no comment.
Validity of the findings: no comment.
Additional comments: 1.	Line 205: “We report the estimated β1, model R2, and ANOVA p-value for each combination of software and model.” However, R2 and ANOVA p-value of linear and quadratic models were reported in Table 4. Please check.
2.	Figure 4, 5: It seems a caption is omitted. There is no need to repeat “We test to see if there is a significant difference ……” in the legend. In addition, were different methods (one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA) employed to test the differences as respect to the runtime and the maximum memory usage? Please check.
3.	Figure 5 legend: Doesn’t it test the difference between the runtime of each software when increasing the number of ancestries estimated? However, in the legend, you say that it is between number of ancestries and the maximum memory usage.
4.	Table 5: Removing the redundant data above the diagonal would make for a more presentable table.
5.	Line 387: The reference of Loter is not correctly cited.


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: AN IMMUNOINFORMATICS APPROACH FOR THE DESIGN OF A MULTI-EPITOPE SUBUNIT VACCINE FOR UROGENITAL SCHISTOSOMIASIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting study aiming to provide insights on a potential effective vaccine against urinary schistosomiasis through an immune-informatic approach. In order to be suitable for publication, several points should be addressed and improved.
Some English editing is required. Some specific points should be better explained and emphasized (see general comments).
Experimental design: In terms of specific methodology and results, the paper is quite clear. But the authors should add some more general information and overview to make the importance of their findings more understandable for a more general readership, in my opinion.
Validity of the findings: The findings are clear. The authors should discuss more the limitations of their study approach.
Additional comments: This is an interesting study aiming to provide insights on a potential effective vaccine against urinary schistosomiasis through an immune-informatic approach. In order to be suitable for publication, several points should be addressed and improved.

In the introduction, the authors mention that “the spread of the disease to regions that were non-endemic before”. I recommend the authors to little emphasize and expand this point here. Indeed, the reader could realize that urinary schistosomiasis is currently becoming a medical issue that is not limited to Africa, but also Europe is facing this disease for several reasons (refer to: J Immigr Minor Health. 2016 Oct;18(5):1237-1240. doi: 10.1007/s10903-015-0272-3; & Infection. 2019 Jun;47(3):395-398. doi: 10.1007/s15010-018-1244-z.). This point may provide additional interest in this paper for a more general readership.

The methodology is quite clear and well-explained. Again, a short introduction/paragraph (before the first subsection) explaining/summarizing the general study approach and aims, might increase the general readership and understanding, considering the scope of this specific journal.

The results are well-organized. However, in order to appreciate the relevance of these finding, it may be useful to provide at some point (in the introduction or discussion) some general aspects about the protective adaptive immune response against S. hematobium in humans. Indeed, in the conclusion, the authors mention “the generation of effective immune response and memory”.

It is not clear the importance of TLR4 in this specific infection and, as a consequence, the relevance of the finding related to “The energy minimization ensured conformational stability of vaccine construct-TLR-4 complex”. I think this discussion should be expanded and, in general, the authors should provide comments and explanation that can make this article be accessible to all journal readership.

The references must be updated and improved according to the general suggestions above, in order to make this study more accessible and interesting. Definitely, both the introduction and discussion should be expanded.

The authors declare they received no funding for this research. However, this seems to be a time-consuming study and require some specific software. Was that part of a more general project? Can they provide any clarifications about this point?


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: AN IMMUNOINFORMATICS APPROACH FOR THE DESIGN OF A MULTI-EPITOPE SUBUNIT VACCINE FOR UROGENITAL SCHISTOSOMIASIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript title “An immunoinformatics approach for the design of a multiepitope subunit vaccine for urogenital schistosomiasis” by Olugbenga et al, presented the computational serial analysis of pathogenic to predicted/prioritize the potential candidates multiepitope subunit (targeting Heat Shock Proteins (HSPs) vaccine design, an aim to get effective immune response against urogenital schistosomiasis infections. The subunit vaccine construct/design (493 aa) is then checked in silico for antigenicity, immunogenicity, allergenicity and physicochemical parameters analysis, followed by structural analysis (3D) for stability and allergenicity purposes. The disease is important when it comes to In Sub-Saharan Africa with significant mortality rate, hence the subject is of interest to many.
Experimental design: The study design is straightforward and presented in a systematic manner. however, the methodology may be improved.
Validity of the findings: The prediction are purely computational and required experimental validations.
Additional comments: 1.	The authors focused only on Heat shock proteins (HSP11, HSP97, HSP90) only, what are other good candidates to be targeted.
2.	HSP from S. haematobium is retrieved only, while there are three main species infecting humans including S. haematobium, S. japonicum, and S. mansoni. Does the HPS selected are homologous and the sequences of the epitopes are conserved among the species.
3.	Does the epitopes are ordered/aligned randomly without prior analysis of their structure confirmation and compatibility of linking, otherwise, it would be having been better to have a proper rationale behind the order of the epitopes. Same is already been done in various publications.
4.	The term vaccine construct or construction may be too ambitious to claim at this point, it may be replacing with vaccine design.
5.	The size of the poly-epitopic structure is still big as it consists of too 29 epitopes, it may of concern during In-vivo trials, is it possible to design multiple ((2 or more) structures/design from the selected epitopes, or if there is possibility of reducing the number of epitopes in the design and only those selected which shows the maximum antigenicity and immunogenicity.


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: AN IMMUNOINFORMATICS APPROACH FOR THE DESIGN OF A MULTI-EPITOPE SUBUNIT VACCINE FOR UROGENITAL SCHISTOSOMIASIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	The submitted manuscript requires extensive editing. For example, in the Abstract, Line 30, “eliciting long time immunity” should be changed to “eliciting long-term immunity.” On Line 58, “200 million people are estimated to affect by urogenital” should be changed to “200 million people are estimate to be affected by urogenital.” On Line 67 – 68, “drug resistance to praziquantel due to continuous pressure on drug have” should be changed to something like “drug resistance to praziquantel due to pressure from continuous mass drug administration.” The sentence on Line 84 is a bit confusing. Changing it to: “HSPs were chosen in this study as the target for the development of a new multi-epitope subunit vaccine against urinary schistosomiasis for their roles in schistosome biology” would make it clearer. Line 166 has an unnecessary period after “vector.” In Line 169, “emanated” should be changed to “originated.” There is an incomplete sentence on Lines 264 – 266. This list is not exhaustive and other errors can be found throughout the submitted manuscript.
2.	The introduction and background can be improved. For example, the study referencing Bergquist is incorrectly labelled (5 in the introduction and 6 in the References section). Reference 9 cited on Line 65 refers to a study that focuses on oxamniquine with brief mentions to praziquantel. I would recommend that another paper or review be chosen. Reference 18 needs to be changed, as it does not mention the change of environments for the schistosomes. Reference 20 does not mention vaccines nor anti-cancer drugs; they suggest that new anti-schistosome drug targets could be found through targeting Hps70 signaling. Another reference would be more appropriate.
3.	The overall structure of the manuscript is standard and no changes are recommended. Figure 1b does not show the entire protein and conformational epitope. Increasing the resolution on Figures 3b and 4 is recommended. Data and analyses have been shared and methods are easy to follow.
4.	Overall, the manuscript is self-contained with relevant results to address the gaps in knowledge expressed within the manuscript.
Experimental design: This research article fits the scope of PeerJ. The objective of the authors is defined, relevant, and meaningful. The methods described are easy to follow with sufficient detail and information. However, I would like to see more explanation and rationale behind the adjuvant, linker, and expression vector choices. These selections seem too similar to References 23 and 24. I think that following their example can be useful to start but I would like to hear your own reasoning behind these choices.
Validity of the findings: Your conclusions states that you have "designed an effective vaccine against urinary schistosomiasis using several immunoinformatics approaches." I would reword this to state that you have used immunoinformatics approaches to design a vaccine candidate that *may* be effective.
Additional comments: The submitted manuscript represents an important step in vaccine development. In silico tools can greatly aid in predicting the efficacy of putative epitope-based vaccines. While this vaccine candidate remains to be tested, the authors have outlined a rational approach to its design.


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: AN IMMUNOINFORMATICS APPROACH FOR THE DESIGN OF A MULTI-EPITOPE SUBUNIT VACCINE FOR UROGENITAL SCHISTOSOMIASIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Figures and manuscript are appropriate.
Experimental design: Clear enough.
Validity of the findings: No major concerns.
Additional comments: The authors appropriately addressed my previous comments. No further observations or 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: AN IMMUNOINFORMATICS APPROACH FOR THE DESIGN OF A MULTI-EPITOPE SUBUNIT VACCINE FOR UROGENITAL SCHISTOSOMIASIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have tried to address the comments.
Experimental design: The authors have tried to address the comments.
Validity of the findings: The authors have tried to address the comments.
Additional comments: The authors have tried to address the comments.


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

Input:
Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROTEIN DOMAINS AND HOMOPEPTIDES IN THE PLASMODIUM FALCIPARUM PROTEOME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study is quite thoughtfully designed and the statistical analyses complement the results very well. The fact that homopeptides are more prominently present in the proteome but outside domains rather than within is a substantial find and is well supported with data. The fact about most homopeptides being enriched in shorter tracts while a long polyN tract is tolerated is most definitely an important result.
Language used is clear and well-articulated. Figures could be better analysed though and the study could have gone into more depth.
Experimental design: Research question and methodology well defined. At the same time, should have explained the statistical analyses rationale as well, but that is alright. If the results showed the percentage of relative depletions between the presence of homopeptides within domains and those outside – it would have been better. The fact that the total numbers were not normalised as to see what percent of the homopeptides of a particular nature of a particular length were within which segment – outside or within the domains needs to be revised. Those numbers would make the differences more stark and make the claims more convincing. The statistical analyses performed are of a good standard and there are no issues there.
Validity of the findings: The finding about depleted/enriched homopeptides at various lengths for differing amino acids is indeed valid although, a clear value of depletion/enrichment ratios would have made the finding stronger. The hypothesis about poly-N tracts being repressed within domains in comparison to outside it and throughout the genome may be considered a decent claim until proven otherwise. This affecting slowing down of co-translational folding is a legit biochemical possibility but it needs more evidence to be validated. The finding about IDRs being more enriched in homopeptides due to their higher tolerance is a possibility but the authors show no data about the relative positions of the homopeptides they actually found within the domains – alignments or schematics missing so…this is a slippery slope, although it has been shown by Russel et al, 2014 that homopeptides actually demarcate the margins of protein domains and sometimes run into them…this does not validate claims about specificity and transitional changes for differing activities. Finally, reframing the last line of conclusions in a more subtle tone could better convey the message.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROTEIN DOMAINS AND HOMOPEPTIDES IN THE PLASMODIUM FALCIPARUM PROTEOME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Here Wang et al. investigated the association of homopeptide in protein domains within human malaria proteome. The manuscript is written well and covered all aspects of the area that need to be reviewed before publication. I do not have any additional comments and overall, I recommend this article for publication.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Line 41. Please quote the correct number of deaths annually caused by malaria from WHO reference.


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 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROTEIN DOMAINS AND HOMOPEPTIDES IN THE PLASMODIUM FALCIPARUM PROTEOME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: - It is important to add more literature references on the performance of previously similar works.No
Experimental design: - In equation 1, what is "X"?
Validity of the findings: - It is important to validate the results on an external dataset.
- Statistical tests have not been explained well. There is a need for adding more description in this part.
- The authors used two published methods for annotating intrinsic disorder. What are the correctness and effective of these methods? It is an important step to make sure that the authors label data correctly.
- If the authors used two methods (DISOPRED3 and IUPRED2a), did they perform experiments separately or merge together?
- Why did the authors not set any parameters of these algorithms?
- UniProt or GO has been used in previous works in biomedical such as PMID: 31921391 and PMID: 31277574. Therefore, the authors should add more references in this description.
- In Table 1, significant values are highlight. Why did the amino acid "E" have low p-value (0.00048), but "E" is not considered as significant?
Additional comments: - Equations need to be assigned their numbers.
- Language writing needs to be improved. Also, there are some typos in the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROTEIN DOMAINS AND HOMOPEPTIDES IN THE PLASMODIUM FALCIPARUM PROTEOME
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I have read the revised version of the manuscript and the point-by-point rebuttal provided by the authors and I feel that most of the comments and suggestions have been well transferred in the current version of the manuscript. I do not have any additional comments and would favor publication of this study.


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

Input:
Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROTEIN DOMAINS AND HOMOPEPTIDES IN THE PLASMODIUM FALCIPARUM PROTEOME
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: My previous comments have been addressed well.
Experimental design: My previous comments have been addressed well.
Validity of the findings: My previous comments have been addressed well.
Additional comments: My previous comments have been addressed well.


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

Input:
Title: FISH PREDATION HINDERS THE SUCCESS OF CORAL RESTORATION EFFORTS USING FRAGMENTED MASSIVE CORALS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Meets all basic reporting requirements.
Experimental design: All areas of the experimental design standards are met, with the exception of sufficiently detailed methodological details for some sections (fish surveys, % area estimates, and others as outlined in the review text). Please see review for more details.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The manuscript by Koval and colleagues presents the results of two field experiments undertaken in Florida, USA, to investigate the effects of fish predation on coral microfragments used in coral reef restoration. Four species of massive corals were generated using an established restoration technique and were outplanted at 3 replicate reef sites. Heavy predation by fish was observed during the first experiment, so a second experiment was designed to test the effectiveness of a variety of deployment techniques in reducing the impacts of predation.

Overall the study was well written, well organized, and was sound in the analyses. I commend the authors on the clear and organized manuscript.

My only concerns about the study are regarding some methodological details that were missing and that require clarification. Please see the specific points below. Additional minor edits and comments can be found in the attached annotated PDF.
•	Line 99. More details are needed about the experimental design, spatial arrangement of fragments and sample size, particularly for experiment 1.
o	If corals were 30-50 cm apart, I think it is likely that the impacts of predation on one fragment could influence the others in close proximity, which would mean that the individual fragments are not independent and are spatially autocorrelated.
o	How many replicate fragments per species per site were deployed? and were there multiple clusters of corals at each site? Were the corals deployed in species-specific clusters, or all mixed together?
•	Line 169/Figure 4D. The fish abundance and predation surveys require more methodological details.
o	Are the data presented in Figure 4D from the visual surveys only? Or both visual surveys and video?
o	1-7 hours of video is a huge range. Was there a comparable amount of video captured from each site? Were they standardized for the time of day (fish behaviour is often diurnal/crepuscular). It is unclear if any data were collected from the video and used in analyses, and if so, how?
o	Was the RVC survey conducted for a set duration? To what taxonomic level were the fish data collected? Were the data collected by one observer or multiple observers (there can be a strong observer bias in fish visual census data collection)? I would recommend at the very least including a supplementary table with the dates and times and other details of each survey done across the reefs, in addition to Supp table 3. I would also suggest adding the sample size (number of surveys), average survey time, and standard deviations around the mean estimates to that table S3.
•	Line 102. Please provide more detail to describe where corals were outplanted and add contextual information about the reef. Were the fragments deployed onto cement hardbottom with low coral cover? Amongst or near corals or in areas of high cover? Near conspecifics?  Were they near any obvious fish territories? Deliberately placed within or outside of fish territories? Additional contextual information would be particularly helpful for the discussion – are removal rates so high because obligate corallivores have no other food sources due to low coral cover at these sites?
•	Line 164, Fig 5. The authors report the % of tissue removed by predation in Figure 5. However, it is unclear how the average percent tissue removed was actually estimated (Line 164). Was the % estimated in situ by eye? Was the estimate made through image analysis of the fragments post-censusing? Was this an estimate on each fragment averaged across pizzas/triads? Please clarify.
•	Line 90. Please define the ‘height of skeletal wall’ in more detail. Does this mean the depth of the skeletal structure below the penetration of live tissue? I ask this because the 4 species used are quite different in terms of polyp depth and the depth of live tissue penetrating within the skeleton. This can have follow-on consequences for time required for tissue regeneration on the sides of the fragment.
•	Lines 102-103. Please provide details for the epoxy and cement types used.


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: FISH PREDATION HINDERS THE SUCCESS OF CORAL RESTORATION EFFORTS USING FRAGMENTED MASSIVE CORALS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English in the manuscript is good and easily understandable. The introduction is arranged in a logical manner, with emphasis on why the work was done. However, I found that some of the references are old, especially those that pertain to the impact of fishes on coral nubbins. I have listed quite a few papers that could bring more emphasis on the role that fishes play in the detachment or partial mortality of corals (please see GENERAL COMMENTS – Introduction). I suggest that this be mentioned in a paragraph or two in the introduction as it was a major objective of the study.

Sections were appropriately arranged according to the suggested format of the journal and figures were understandable and were of high quality as they had minimal blurring even when inspected up close. There are, however, a few minor details in the captions and images that might be improved upon (please see GENERAL COMMENTS – Figures & Tables). Moreover, the raw data is supplied by the authors and their R code is readily available at GitHub.
Experimental design: The paper fits the scope of the journal as the topic centers around the Biological and Environmental Sciences, is a research article and has scientific and methodological soundness. Elaborating on the latter, I found the paper discussed well the knowledge gap on the fate of outplanted microfragments especially when exposed to fishes. Generally, the research question/hypothesis are well defined, but I found that some of the section placements were a bit odd (please see GENERAL COMMENTS – Methodology).

Research permits were secured prior to the commencement of the experiments/surveys (SAL-19-1794-SCRP) and the methods used were appropriate for the research question investigated (and broadly comparable to published literature). Methods were generally well described and can be easily visualized from reading the text and if supplemented by the figures that the authors provide. However, I have a few clarifications on the number of replicates, the scoring of coral tissue mortality and the variable video duration of the fish surveys (please see GENERAL COMMENTS – Methodology).
Validity of the findings: Data are provided by the authors, together with the R code that was used to run the statistical analyses. I have a few clarifications regarding the statistical analyses, particularly the response variables used in the GLM (i.e. is “proportion removed” (L115) the presence/absence of the microfragment, the tissue mortality or a combination of both?).

The authors did a decent job at addressing their research questions (i.e. examine coral nubbin detachment or mortality due to fish predation, how that varied among coral species, reefs and time periods, and whether outplanting techniques can mitigate detachment/predation). They have discussed in detail that indeed fish can substantially detach or prey on their microfragment corals, with the extent of detachment/predation influenced by the coral species transplanted, the abundance of reef fishes in a reef site and time since first outplanted (i.e. through time detachment/mortality declines). Moreover, they identified that outplanted corals are less susceptible to detachment/predation when cement is used over glue and if corals are allowed to recover tissue.

However, I think that the discussion can be further improved by incorporating more details on fish detachment/predation on coral nubbins, and how the authors’ results (i.e. rates of detachment/mortality) are similar/dissimilar to these other studies (please see GENERAL COMMENTS – Discussion).

There are some speculations in the discussion regarding unexplained outcomes of the experiment (e.g. L324-326 mortality through time with unidentified causes), but the authors have highlighted these sections and mentioned that these will be interesting research avenues in the future.
Additional comments: The authors have presented a generally well written paper that examined the influence of reef fishes on the detachment or predation induced mortality of outplanted microfragment corals. As pointed out, this technique of coral fragmentation is relatively novel and as such sources of detachment/predation and rates of such removal are not well understood. Here, they identified that a substantial percentage (as high as ~ 30%) of outplanted corals are detached/eaten by reef fishes, with the magnitude of detachment/predation varying according to coral species used, reef location and time since initial outplanting. Moreover, they identified outplanting techniques that may reduce detachment/predation impacts of fishes. Overall, the paper improves our understanding of how reef fishes can be detrimental to outplanted corals, particularly for corals that are derived using micofragmented techniques.
However, I find that some of the section arrangement (i.e. L124-167) unorthodox and that the discussion lacks a bit of literature pertaining to the influence of fishes on coral nubbins. I believe that the content of the discussion can be further strengthened if the authors incorporate these previous works.

Introduction
L42-45: These two stressors are likely the two most pressing issues that coral reefs face due to their large spatial coverage (Hoey et al. 2016 – Diversity), and it might be good to highlight that. “Globally, rising ocean temperature and ocean acidification are perhaps the ….. and can lead to mass coral mortality and reduced calcification rates”.
L49-51: Coral restoration is only one of the suites of tools used to conserve coral reefs. It might be good to indicate that addressing these issues (e.g. climate change) will need proper global and local management and governance, but active restoration programs can aid in the faster recovery and rehabilitation of reefs.
Methodology
L70-71: Commonly attached using glue, epoxy, etc.? Kindly indicate
L76-78: I think this section can be expanded by specifying why is there a need to develop and evaluate ways to maximize outplant survivorship and success. For example, outplanted branching corals are vulnerable to detachment by hydrodynamic forces (Shafir et al. 2006 – Mar Biol; Shaish et al. 2008 – J Exp Mar Biol Ecol) or through the predation (of fishes or invertebrates) or incidental grazing of fishes (Miller & Hay 1998 - Oecologia; Christiansen et al. 2009 – Coral Reefs; Jayewardene et al. 2009 – Coral Reefs; Frias-Torres & van de Geer 2015 - PeerJ; Gibbs & Hay 2015 – PeerJ; Gallagher & Doroupolos 2017 – Coral Reefs; Knoester et al. 2019 – Mar Ecol Prog Ser; Quimpo et al. 2019 – Rest Ecol). The latter (i.e. influence of fishes), I think needs to be particularly mentioned since it is a key question in the study.
L95-96: Can you kindly clarify why this is important to highlight?
L98: Can you please mention how many replicates were done per coral species?
L101-104: Sentence can be improved. I suggest “Microfragmented corals … epoxy and were secured to the reef using cement, with 30-50 cm (from L109) separating each coral outplant”
L109: Please remove “The corals were spaced …” if authors’ agree with the changes above
L110: Is tissue mortality here scored as % of tissue loss? Kindly specify.
L115: Is proportion of corals removed referring to detachment/dislodgement, fish predation or cumulatively an effect of both? Kindly specify.
L124-167: It is quite unorthodox to include research questions and hypothesis in the methodology. I suggest some of the concepts, particularly how coral height and method of attachment be discussed in the introduction. These can be incorporated into the section (i.e. L76-78) that discusses how fish influence coral nubbins, since previous studies have shown that coral nubbin size (Christiansen et al. 2009 – Coral Reefs; Jayewardene et al. 2009 – Coral Reefs; Quimpo et al. 2019 – Res Ecol) influences that rate of detachment/mortality in field and laboratory settings. Moreover, method of attachment has also been shown to affect detachment, but the reasons for these were not really identified (e.g. Dizon et al. 2008 – Aquatic Conser; Levy et al. 2010 – Ecol Eng).
L171: Can you kindly expound on why deployment times for the video cameras were variable (i.e. 1 to 7 hours)?
L171-173: Sentence can be improved to explain why the fish surveys were done. “Additionally, …. to examine differences in fish species assemblages at each site …”
L177: Reference used to classify trophic group of fishes (e.g. fishbase)?
Results
L187-190: It might be better to move this sentence down (i.e. after comments on L 192-193).
L191: It might be better to move this up to L187 after “species-dependent”. For example, “The probability …. with clear ranks in coral susceptibility to removal that was consistent among experimental periods and reef locations”.
L192-193: It might be better to move this sentence after the sentence above (i.e. comments on L191). “Moreover, there was a minor, but significant … in removal between … “.
Discussion
L270: It might also be good to highlight that removal declined with time to emphasize that such high rates of removal (8-27%) are only within the first few days after outplanting
L271-272: Maybe highlight results from the authors’ own work here and relate with the previous study by Page et al. (2018). For instance, “Rates of predation were slightly lower at ~ 5-15% (estimated from Fig. 4B), which were x-fold to y-fold lower than predation rates by Page et al. (2018).”
L280-L286: This section can be further improved by incorporating recent research on family-specific consumption/detachment of corals by reef fishes (e.g. Triggerfish: Gibbs & Hay 2015 – PeerJ, Frias-Torres & van de Geer 2015; Butterflyfish: Gallagher & Doropoulos 2015 – Coral Reefs; Quimpo et al. 2019 – Res Ecol; Blennies: Christiansen et al. 2009; Parrotfish and Rabbitfish: Quimpo et al. 2019 – Res Ecol; Boxfish: Jayewardene et al. 2009).
L292: Size refuge for coral nubbin has been demonstrated by Christiansen et al. (2009) Jayewardene et al. (2009), Gibbs & Hay (2015) and Quimpo et al. (2019) in field or laboratory experiments.
L299-302: As butterflyfishes were the only species that were recorded to consume coral tissue in this study, it may be good to expound on the diet of these fishes. Specifically, do they consume any of the four species regularly, and if no studies have been done to understand whether they do, maybe a more general statement about the proportion of massive corals in their diet would suffice. Berumen et al. (2005 – Mar Ecol Prog Ser) and the book by Morgan Pratchett (Biology of Butterflyfishes) are potentially good references.
L299-304: Feeding selectivity has also been demonstrated for Balistapus undulates, wherein they preyed more on nubbins of Pocillopora damicornis over Seriatopora hystrix (Gibbs & Hay 2015).
L308-311: This sentence could be moved to the paragraph before this one (i.e. L299-304) as this paragraph talks about the species responsible for removing coral nubbins.
L311-314: Indeed, grazing by fishes is important to control algae at reefs, recent studies have also shown that in experimental outplants, ~ 25-80% of turf algae are removed by herbivores (i.e. Ctenochaetus striatus, Chlorurus spilurus and Siganus fuscescens) (Knoester et al. 2019 – Mar Ecol Prog Ser; Quimpo et al. 2019 – Res Ecol).
Figures
Fig. 1B – Maybe mention what species of Pseudodiploria since 2 species were used
Fig. 1E, F – It may be better to encircle or point at the tissue lesion as unfamiliar readers may not readily distinguish these feeding scars.
Fig. 5 – Maybe specify that these were P. clivosa fragments as this was the only species used in the second experiment
Tables
STable 1-3: No captions?


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: FISH PREDATION HINDERS THE SUCCESS OF CORAL RESTORATION EFFORTS USING FRAGMENTED MASSIVE CORALS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Koval et al is well written, uses sufficient references to cover background info (unless identified below), with appropriate figures, data sharing, and hypotheses. It is also timely and tackles an important issue worth studying, restoration best practices.

I outlined aspects that need to be addressed below...

Introduction
Line 49: consider adding in a reference discussing white band or white plague within S. Florida since diseases were decimating the area long before SCTLD.

Line 54: perhaps change to “Until recently, restoration programs…” since microfragmenting massive corals has occurred within the FRT since 2012/2013 and tens of thousands of outplants have already been placed on reefs at this point
Experimental design: Methods:
Line 112: this says that genotypes were not tracked, which suggests that you did not identify which outplant came from which parent colony. Is this the case? Or did you mean to say that genotype was not assessed molecularly, but you tracked the colonies from particular parent colonies? Please clarify.
Line 116: spell out GLM and then abbreviate after; what factors were your predictor variables and random factors?

Line 155: there are substantial differences between your ‘controls’ and the Page et al method including: 1. size of corals, all outplants in Page et al. are grown out on land for 4-12 months after microfragmentation prior to outplanting until they reach  the edge of the plugs. See figures in Page et al.
2. There is no raised skeleton on the microfragments, as they consist of an incredibly thin layer of tissue with very little skeleton when they are initially fragged.
3. the ceramic plugs are attached with epoxy to be a gradual slope from the plug to the substrate.
4. no cement is ever used for attachment
5. microfragments are usual created as ~ 1 cm 2 frags, so I would actually not call your frags technically 'microfrags'. Just something again to acknowledge.

This needs to be acknowledged because as written it suggests the Page et al method is your control, but you have not followed the Page et al. methods in two key ways.

Line 165: what’s the difference between ‘pizza’ and ‘plug triad’? I think they are the same so just use one here or explain the difference between the two. Maybe plug triads are for the control group. This just needs maybe one sentence to clarify.
Line 166: how was this visually assessed? Estimate percent covered? Ranked?
Line 170: 1 – 7 hours of a range seems like a lot. Why so variable and how did you account for this in the analyses? How did you tackle the video surveys vs in situ surveys? How did you collect data from the videos?

Any attempt at capturing growth rates over those 6 months to assess not just survival but whether the corals are growing too?
Validity of the findings: Results
Line 184: this needs to be explained in the methods (variables used etc).
Line 185: what does the sequential addition of variables mean? Sounds like you ran the model, then added another factor and re-ran, but then you only provide on p value and R2 value. Does this represent all the variables included in the model?
Line 191: maybe just stay ‘consistent through space and time”
Line 195: is this cumulative or between 1 months and 6 months (5 month time period). Shouldn’t these two time periods be standardized by day so that you are comparing rates rather than two time points that cover vastly different periods of time?
Line 201: provide an average value here rather than >9%, which could be anything.
Lines 205 – 223: I am confused why there are results on fish abundance here. The methods suggest fish data was collected for experiment 2, but these are results of experiment 1. Please clarify in the methods. Also are these results from in situ diver or video methods?
Line 232: What does “After this study” mean? By the end of the study?
Line 250: extra parenthesis here
Additional comments: Discussion
Line 262: use the reference from Mexico (Alvarez-Filip et al in PeerJ) to show that SCTLD is other places besides FL
Line 272: what I think is important to note within the Page et al. paper is that it was site specific. Offshore corals were highly predated while nearshore corals were predated much less. Acknowledging that site specific interactions between outplants and the fish community is another variable that needs to be addressed in the discussion.

Line 296: there is another part of this…grow out period. You can microfrag and then have longer grow out to reach the size needed for better outplant success. Microfragments are typically outplanted at full plug size with very little plug showing. Then the epoxy shores up the side of the disk. So it looks like your methods were not necessarily typical for what has been used as methods for current outplanting efforts. I think this needs to be acknowledged too.

Line 302: make active voice rather than passive voice

Line 305: did you run regression analysis on this? If not, then you should use different words than ‘related’.

Additional thoughts: why is predation such an issue for massive coral species and not Acropora cervicornis when they are both outplanted within fish territories and on reefs with high abundance? Might be worth discussing here as well.

Can you tell from the video if the fish were biting the corals on the cement pizzas but just not removing them? Or were they deterred from biting the substrate in general?

Please acknowledge growth rates and other ramifications for the methods you are suggesting. Although cement may decrease loss from predation, what could be the unintended consequences such as increased time for outplanting coral, potential influence on reduced growth rates by using cement (especially corals embedded in cement…they would take forever to fuse)?

I know you guys use cement all the time in restoration, but we see a significant reduction in growth rates for corals within our ex situ system that grow on cement vs ceramic plugs. The publication is in prep right now. We had to switch back from using cement to ceramic just to keep growth rates up. I think this at least needs to be discussed as a possible issue.

Conclusion: seems like there are confounding factors as to whether it is ‘glue’ or the ‘ceramic plug’ that may have influenced removal rate. This needs to be clarified throughout the text. It could be the exposure of the plug since you did not grow out the tissue to the edge.

Acknowledgements: suggest identifying role of those you mention, any funding sources needed to be mentioned here?

Figures: recommend changing results presented within the figure legend to a visual within the figure. The equal signs do not show all comparisons (e.g. does Reef 1 = Reef 3?)
Identify ‘coral species’ rather than ‘species’ in legends (as you discuss fish and coral in this 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: FISH PREDATION HINDERS THE SUCCESS OF CORAL RESTORATION EFFORTS USING FRAGMENTED MASSIVE CORALS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: Most methodological details have been clarified and the discussion has been significantly expanded to address the points raised by the reviewers. I have some methodological questions remaining, however, and I suggest they be addressed prior to publication, both for reproducibility and for clarity around the experimental design and analysis.
Validity of the findings: Findings appear clear and valid.
Additional comments: The manuscript by Koval and colleagues presents the results of two field experiments undertaken in Florida, USA, to investigate the effects of fish predation on coral microfragments used in coral reef restoration. Four species of massive corals were generated using an established restoration technique and were outplanted at 3 replicate reef sites. Heavy predation by fish was observed during the first experiment, so a second experiment was designed to test the effectiveness of a variety of deployment techniques in reducing the impacts of predation.

Overall the study was well written and well organized, and the revision made by the authors addressed a majority of my comments satisfactorily. Most methodological details have been clarified and the discussion has been significantly expanded to address the points raised by the reviewers, particularly the additional references and discussion around fish predation patterns, the potential for density-dependent and spatially autocorrelated effects, and key differences with prior outplanting studies (i.e. Page et al.). The findings will be useful to the coral restoration community and both provide guidance for future deployments and identify further research needs.

I have some methodological questions remaining, however, and I suggest they be addressed prior to publication, both for reproducibility and for clarity around the experimental design and analysis. They are outlined below. Please also find additional minor comments/edits in the attached annotated PDF.

-	Line 119. Thank you for the additional details around the deployment design for experiment 1. However, please clarify why there are two quadrat sizes indicated (3x3 and 5x5) and how they were distributed among reef sites. I recognize that the size was ‘based on substrate availability’ but I am concerned that differences in spatial distribution among outplants within grids could significantly impact the predation patterns observed. A 25m2 grid is nearly 3 times the area of a 9m2 grid and thus the density of corals could be much different among plots. In line 346 of the discussion, you mention that high predation may have been caused by close spacing of the corals. So, was the spacing of corals within plots consistent across all plots and reef sites (I recognize that you say 40-60 cm spacing)? If densities were consistent among plots, and easy solution would be to add a sentence to the effect of: “corals were deployed within replicate square grids (from 3x3 to 5x5 m) whose areas were determined based on substrate availability. The number of coral outplants placed within each grid ranged from X to X to maintain a consistent density of corals across replicate plots”.

-	Line 172: The experimental design is still somewhat unclear for experiment 2. Firstly, if each plot had 10 pizzas total (and 3-4 pizzas per treatment), shouldn't there be at least 12 pizzas per plot given that there are 4 treatments? The numbers don't seem to add up. Secondly, please indicate the size and density (see comment above) of pizzas within each plot, and explicitly state the number of replicate plots (I presume 4 give the sample sizes reported?). Thirdly, I suggest moving lines 177-182 (traids) right after 170 so the 4 experimental treatments can be compared with the control. Then you can discuss how many of each treatment (& control) pizzas/triads were placed in each plot. Lastly, if the pizzas within plots were spaced 30-50 cm apart but plots were only separated by only 1 m, how are the plots independent replicates? Can you provide any reference or justification for the spatial arrangement of the experimental design?

-	Line 189: You state that % tissue covered by sediment and % tissue removal were averaged within pizzas and then compared among treatments using ANOVA. But what about the removal data? Were those also averaged within pizzas, or were they combined across all replicate pizzas within a plot? Was replicate pizza or replicate plot used as the experimental unit in the data analysis? More details are needed.

-	Line 205: Corals were monitored at 1 wk, 1 mo and 6 mo. But there are many more than 3 RVC surveys on each reef and the number of surveys differed among reefs? Please clarify how the RVC surveys relate to the coral monitoring, how many replicate surveys per time per reef, how many replicate temporal surveys, etc. were undertaken. It is difficult to see how the survey times/dates relate to the coral restoration experimental timeline. The replicate # surveys, and when they were undertaken need to be clearly linked with exp 1. Secondly, given that the sites had different numbers of surveys, should only surveys conducted at all three sites within the same month be used in the analyses? Could there be seasonal variability in the fish communities observed?

General comments:

-	With respect to organisation/flow, the methods for the “coral cover, fish abundance and predation surveys” subsection still seemed out of place. It wasn’t clear that the RVC data were used only for experiment 1 but that the video surveys were used for both experiments. At the very least, an introductory sentence in this section is needed to provide context to the data and to explain which experiments each data set was supporting (consider moving line 200 up to the start of the paragraph and expanding it). Also, since the fish survey data are reported in the results along with experiment 1 results, perhaps they should be presented that way in the methods, so that the methods and results are presented in parallel?

Minor comments (also please see attached PDF):

-	Typo in TableS2 column title

-	Table S3, please add abundance unit to column name and consider adding a SD value for each average. Furthermore, multiple temporal surveys were undertaken. When and how many surveys were completed at each reef that went into the average calculations?


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: FISH PREDATION HINDERS THE SUCCESS OF CORAL RESTORATION EFFORTS USING FRAGMENTED MASSIVE CORALS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comment
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: No Comment
Additional comments: I thank the authors for considering and incorporating the comments/suggestions raised by myself and the other reviewers. The paper has been further polished and I only have a few very minor comments regarding grammar and word usage.

L109: Fragment corals “were” first glued

L149-151: Sentences closely resemble those of L128-131. Perhaps reword to “Funding constraints precluded genotyping of parent colonies, however, every parent colony was represented in each treatment”.

L197: Perhaps spell out Coral Point Count with Excel extension (CPCe) for those unfamiliar.

L223: This could be removed as L221 already mentions the (coral) species-specific removal.

L245-256: I’m hesitant to categorize surgeonfish as “corallivores” since studies have conclusively shown that they are herbivores (e.g. stomach modifications, feeding behavior, etc.; see papers by Howard Choat or David Bellwood). Similarly, damselfish are generally territorial herbivores, planktivores or omnivores.

L270: “and” 41% for O. faveolata


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 NEW SPECIES OF ALIEN TERRESTRIAL PLANARIAN IN SPAIN: CAENOPLANA DECOLORATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear professional English is used throughout the paper, and the introduction provides the necessary context for this work. The cited literature is relevant to this study, the structure conforms to PeerJ standards, including the data deposition statement, it complies with the new species policies, and meets the ICZN standard. The figures are of a high standard and are correctly labelled and described.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Both morphological and molecular data support the placement of the species in the genus Caenoplana and evidence is provided that the specimens belong to a new species C. decolorata. Although a specific morphological diagnosis is not provided, a differential diagnosis is provided in the discussion.
Additional comments: It has been stated* that “It is clear that the means to resolving many taxonomic problems lies with species descriptions and generic diagnoses with comparable treatment of comparable characters.” The recognition of so-called ”cryptic species” revealed by molecular studies, and later confirmed by detailed comparative morphological investigations may require the re-evaluation of characters not previously considered of taxonomic significance; this underlines the need for complete descriptions.

With this comment in mind it is unfortunate that the morphological account of C. decolorata is incomplete: the anterior portion of the Holotype was not sectioned but retained in alcohol, precluding the present description of, for example, anteriad sensory and reproductive structures. Furthermore, the morphological description provided in this paper seems compromised in part by the thickness of the sections (10 µm -15 µm thick); such thick sections appear to have limited the description of cytological details of the histology of the copulatory organs and frustrated determining the detailed histology of the ejaculatory duct, and in particular the nature of the enigmatic structure near position 4.

Minor corrections and suggestions are provided under Track Changes in the attached document that should be rectified before acceptance of this paper. It is also suggested that to facilitate comparisons of comparable characters across genera and species, that where indicated, the morphological description of the new species is harmonized with terminology and metrics generally currently provided elsewhere in the morphological descriptions of species od terrestrial flatworms.

*Winsor, Johns and Yeates (1998) Introduction, and ecological and systematic background, to the Terricola (Tricladida). Pedobiologia 42: page 400.


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 NEW SPECIES OF ALIEN TERRESTRIAL PLANARIAN IN SPAIN: CAENOPLANA DECOLORATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The manuscript deals with the description of a new land planarian of the genus Caenoplana that has been introduced into Europe, which is supported by both morphological and molecular data. This is an important work considering the still poor knowledge about the diversity of land planarians on a global scale. The manuscript is well-written, with proper English, follows the general structure of works on the taxonomy of land planarians and has adequate methods.

My main questions and suggestions are related to the description of the copulatory apparatus of the new species.

The authors describe the sperm ducts as entering the ejaculatory duct directly and consider the ejaculatory duct as having seven distinct regions. In most land planarians, the proximal part of the canal or cavity that the sperm ducts enter receives large quantities of secretion and is called seminal vesicle or prostatic vesicle. The regions 1-3 seem to be very similar to what is usually considered as the prostatic or seminal vesicle, so I am a bit intrigued about why the authors did not interpret this region as such considering that, according to Winsor’s thesis (2003) and the Ogren’s (1989) redescription of Caenoplana coerulea, a seminal vesicle is present in the genus.

Region 7 looks too wide to be part of the ejaculatory duct and, considering that the species lacks a permanent penis papilla, it seems that this region would probably constitute the external wall of the eversible penis. If that is the case, then it would be part of a male atrium and not of the ejaculatory duct. However, since the epithelium of the 7 regions was not described in the text, one cannot be sure about how to classify them. My suggestion is to include a description of the epithelium of those 7 regions and, if the epithelium of the final region (region 7) is more similar (or identical) to that of the common atrium than to the epithelium of more proximal regions of the duct, to reclassify it as a narrow male atrium and not as part of the ejaculatory duct. (see Winsor (1998) Aspects of taxonomy and functional histology in terrestrial flatworms (Tricladida: Terricola). Pedobiologia 42:412–432.)

I have only a few other small suggestions or questions to improve the text:

Page 2, line 56 (methods): change “contain” into “contained”
lines 60 and 61: replace “alcohol” with “ethanol”
Page 3, lines 114-116: common female duct has the abbreviation “cf” but the figures use “cd”, so either the text or the figures must be changed.
Page 4, line 152: I am not sure that the term “co-type” is still used. Wouldn’t that specimen be a paratype? Or, if it has the same status as the holotype, both would be syntypes.


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: EARLY CHILDHOOD CARIES AND ITS ASSOCIATIONS WITH SUGAR CONSUMPTION, OVERWEIGHT AND EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING IN LOW, MIDDLE AND HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES: AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written, follows the guidelines, references and shows relevant results
Experimental design: The aim and scope and design are ok. Statistical analysis needs improvement: ANOVA for non-parametric data is uncommon. Kruskal Wallis would be nicer. Please check a statistician
Validity of the findings: May be if the journal can provide this it would be nice to have the full data set online.
The figures combine kg/per capita with percentage. This is highly confusing to me. Also it is common that the independent variable sugar consumption is depicted on the x-axis and the dependent variable ECC on the y-axis. Please explain this.
Additional comments: HIC sometimes countries, income level, income region is used. It would be nice to know some examples of typical LMIC countries. To me overweight is not 1 on 1 related with high sugar consumption. Total calorie consumption including fat is better correlated with overweight.
It seems that fluoride usage (toothpaste and waterfluoridation) is also a factor which varies per income of the country. Could this also be incorporated in the article for instance in the HIC sugar consumption and ECC are not related, while in the LMIC there is an association. And caries in LIC is low due to low amount of sugar consumption.


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: EARLY CHILDHOOD CARIES AND ITS ASSOCIATIONS WITH SUGAR CONSUMPTION, OVERWEIGHT AND EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING IN LOW, MIDDLE AND HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES: AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: Methods section needs improvement in order to provide a more detailed description.
Validity of the findings: The discussion is well presented but should include a further aspect (the possible role of water fluoridation).
Additional comments: The manuscript presents the results of an ecological study on the associations between the prevalence of caries and overweight in preschool children, percentage of children exclusively breastfed until 6 months, and country per capita sugar consumption. The subject is relevant to public health but some aspects need to be reviewed:
Abstract
The study aim does not mention that the analysis was based on the countries’ economic classification by income level. In the last paragraph of the Introduction a different text is presented including this information, which is essential for the understanding of the study methods and conclusions.
Introduction
The following parts need corrections: Line 66 – “G Greater”; line 71 – “Also, -- individuals”.
Line 100 – The authors state that “We were however, unable to access any study that…”. I would suggest them to change this sentence, since it only indicates that they were not able to access the studies. If they do not mean that, a possible sentence would be “To our knowledge, no previous studies have…”.

Materials and methods
This section describes how each study variable was collected and analysed. An introductory part explaining the study design would be useful for a better understanding of the methodology and results. Also, how was the access to the datasets? Are they open data sources?
For the variable “Percentage of 3-5-year-old children with ECC” the source is reported, but what are the “other online databases published in the period 2007-2017”?
The variable “Per capita sugar consumption” needs a more detailed explanation. What measures where used? Does this data really refer to consumption of sugar? In some countries only data on sugar availability or acquisition is available, which does not necessarily mean consumption. More information regarding this variable is presented in the Discussion section (lines 240-241): “The data on per capita sugar consumption are national averages for all age groups; we found no age-specific data”, but should be in Methods.
The age group for the variable “Measure of overweight” is presented in two different ways: children aged 0 to 5 years old (line 135) and children less than 5 years old (lines 152 and 169). In the second version (children less than 5), those aged 5 would not be included. This should be corrected.
In “Data analysis” (lines 155-156) the information “The total number of 3- to 5-year-old children affected with ECC was calculated from a publication by El Tantawi et al [2018]” is repeated (it was presented in line 116). One-way ANOVA was also mentioned twice.

Results
I could not understand this result in lines 170-171: “The number of LICs ranged from 4-6, LMICs from 19-20, HMICs from 17-24 and HICs from 7 to 30”. What do these numbers indicate?
Table 1 – I would suggest caries and obesity instead of “sugar-related diseases” in the title. The variable “Number of 3-5 year old children with ECC in million” was not cited in Methods.
Discussion
Line 252- the use of fluoridated toothpaste was mentioned as a factor related to caries in childhood. However, another important preventive strategy is missing: fluoridation of public water supply. The same can be noted in lines 262 and 287, where access to dental care is emphasized, but there is no mention to water fluoridation. Considering the role of this population strategy for caries prevention, it should be included in this part of the manuscript. The authors should also explain why they have not included this variable in the present analysis, since it would be expected that they would influence the results. There is evidence that presence of water fluoridation may reduce inequalities in dental caries.
In 8th paragraph I would suggest the inclusion of this important paper on the role of sugars: Sheiham A, James WP. Diet and dental caries: The pivotal role of free sugars reemphasized. J Dent Res, v.94, p.1341-1347, 2015.


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: EARLY CHILDHOOD CARIES AND ITS ASSOCIATIONS WITH SUGAR CONSUMPTION, OVERWEIGHT AND EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING IN LOW, MIDDLE AND HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES: AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have adressed the remarks of the reviewers appropriately.
The main results and conclusions can now be accepted for publication.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Dear Authors,
Thank you for adressing all the issues that the reviewers have mentioned.
The manuscript is now much better.
For a dentist however the perspective of population with a disease seems to loose contact with the individual patient.
However, the population based perspective helps understand group/ population dynamics trends.
Thank you for this perspective.
Based on the recent trend of national initiated population and/ or industry regulated restrictions in sugar usage monitoring of populations trends will become more interesting.
The coming years the effects of such regulations need to be monitored and evaluated.


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: EARLY CHILDHOOD CARIES AND ITS ASSOCIATIONS WITH SUGAR CONSUMPTION, OVERWEIGHT AND EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING IN LOW, MIDDLE AND HIGH-INCOME COUNTRIES: AN ECOLOGICAL STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language in the manuscript requires review, specially the new sentences included in the text.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: Part of the conclusion is not linked to the original research question. Please see further comments on this aspect in "General comments for the author".
Additional comments: The authors have adequately addressed most of my previous concerns.
The aspects that need further review are in the Abstract:
In the Aim, overweight was considered as “an indicator of high sugar consumption”. Although extrinsic sugars may be related to overweight and obesity, there is no clear evidence that they are indicators of these conditions. I would therefore suggest the exclusion of this term. The new sentence would be “This ecological study determined the association between the prevalence of early childhood caries (ECC), overweight and country per capita sugar consumption”.
In the Conclusion, the authors stated that “…there was no clear relationship between the two diseases suggesting that planning for their control using a common approach may not produce similar impact”. The possible implication (“suggesting that planning for their control using a common approach may not produce similar impact”) should be removed, since it is not supported by the study methodology and findings. It is not in the Discussion.