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: ANXIOLYTIC AND ANTI-STRESS EFFECTS OF ACUTE ADMINISTRATION OF ACETYL-L-CARNITINE IN ZEBRAFISH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There is a lot of room for improvement for the manuscript. See detailed comments below.
Experimental design: There is a lot of room for improvement for the manuscript. See detailed comments below.
Validity of the findings: There is a lot of room for improvement for the manuscript. See detailed comments below.
Additional comments: The manuscript by Pancotto et al. describes the anxiolytic properties of acetyl-l-carnitine (ALC) in a zebrafish model. Although the idea of the manuscript is interesting, the current manuscript should be extensively revised and additional experiments must be performed prior to this manuscript being considered for publication.

Major criticisms:
1. It would appear that the study was repeated on only one batch fish. Although multiple fish were used, the experiments must be repeated on at least two more independent cohorts of fish to ensure that there are no confounding factors that might be contributing to the reported effects.
2. The flake fish food diet must be properly characterized. This food is not commonly used with zebrafish (typically Zeigler's food with brine shrimp are used). The concern here is that this flake food may contain different levels of various antioxidants (if any) than other commercially available and more commonly used food. Since the antioxidant system is assessed, it is of major importance to analyze the diet for its antioxidant capacity, since this will have a major impact on oxidative stress parameters and the susceptibility of fish to oxidative stress and damage.
3. It is unclear how exactly the behavioral testing was performed. Please indicate whether the fish were fed before the testing and whether the treatment groups were alternated during the tests. In other words, was the control group analyzed first followed by the exposed groups, or was the order alternated. This is crucial information. The behavioral testing was performed between 9 am and 4 pm, based on personal experiences with Novel tank test, fish that are tested before lunch perform much better than those tested post lunch, because they are getting hungry, so it is crucial to reduce this effect by feeding the fish in the morning and alternating the treatment groups.
4. It is unclear whether the TBARS assay included butylated hydroxy toluene (BHT) in the incubation mixture and whether or not butanol extraction was performed. Based on the current description, these aspects are missing. Not including BHT and not performing butanol extraction will result in overestimation of TBARS.
5. The lipid peroxidation in the brains of control stressed fish is ~2 fold higher than non-stressed fish. This is a very striking result, considering that the fish were stressed only for a few minutes. It would be essential to consider the aforementioned comments #2-4 and repeat these measurements with independent fish cohorts to ensure the accuracy.
6. The study focuses on anxiety and stress, yet there was no attempt to assess cortisol levels to verify the hypothesis that the observed effects of ALC are actually due to lower stress. Cortisol levels have been measured previously in zebrafish, both as whole fish lipid extracts and in plasma (e.g. Filby et al., 2010, Physiol Behav; Fuzzen et al., 2011, Gen Comp Endocrinol; Massarsky et al., 2014, Sci Tot Environ). The cortisol data must be included to validate the reported results. This is especially critical since the behavioral tests are based upon locomotor activity, so in theory it is possible that the behavioral effects are due to bioenergetic changes rather than neuronal. Inclusion of cortisol data could support the neuronal changes.
7. The conclusion states that the study demonstrates that ALC can modulate neurochemical homeostasis. This conclusion cannot be reached based upon the performed experiments since neurotransmitters were not assessed. The authors should either remove this statement or attempt to measure neurotransmitters in the brain, which has been done recently in the zebrafish brain using ELISA kits (e.g. Massarsky et al., 2018, NeuroToxicology) or HPLC (Chatterjee and Gerlai, 2009, Behav Brain Res).
8. Several recent studies demonstrate the behavioral effects in zebrafish can be sex-dependent (e.g. Weber et al., 2015, J Toxicol Environ Health; Massarsky et al., 2018, NeuroToxicology). Therefore, to get a better idea of what ALC is doing in zebrafish, the results must be separated by sex. It is possible that males are more sensitive than females or vice versa. Separation by sex could potentially reduce the huge variation that is seen in the behavioral endpoints.
9. The study tries to relate the ALC supplementation (its antioxidant properties) as a potential treatment for anxiety in humans. However, there are already a number of commercially available antioxidants as well as multiple antioxidants that are present in the diet that humans are exposed to. Therefore, the aim of the study is not entirely clear with that regards. If the authors are trying to convince the audience that ALC is more efficient than other compounds (e.g. N-acetyl cysteine), than a proper experimental comparison must be made between ALC and other compounds to validate the efficacy and relevance.

Minor criticisms:
1. Running title: 'Acute ALC' should be followed by 'exposure' to make more sense.
2. Keywords: 'acute' can be removed from the first keyword. 'acute stress' should be 'oxidative stress'.
3. Abstract:
- lines 24-27 - the end of the sentence 'and on excessive neuronal cell death' does not make sense grammatically. The sentence should be revised accordingly.
- line 33 - 'this drug' should be replaced by 'ALC'. The obtained chemical is not actually a pharmacological substance and should not be referred to as 'drug'.
- lines 35-36 - there is practically no mechanistic data in the current manuscript. Therefore 'its novel mechanism of action' should be removed.
4. Introduction:
- The introduction needs to be revised to include more pertinent background information to set a better and more logical stage for the study. The topic of oxidative stress should be clarified; oxidative stress is a complex issue that has multiple stages initially there is no response, followed by induction of antioxidant genes, followed by oxidative damage (if antioxidant system fails).
- lines 48-49 - the portion that starts with 'it acted as a rapid...' should be revised.
- line 52 - 'evidences' should be 'evidence'.
- line 55 - 'organism' should be 'organism's'
- line 57 - there are a lot of antioxidant compounds that have been evaluated in clinical studies. Please provide the specific examples that are actually relevant to the current study.
5. Materials and methods:
- The title of the section should be 'Materials and methods' not 'Material and methods'.
- lines 72-72 - please specify the housing conditions rather than referring to previous study.
- line 74 - why was the temperature set at 26 degrees? The optimal temperature for zebrafish is actually 28 degrees.
- line 77 - please provide more details on the fish diet since the mentioned food is not commonly used in zebrafish studies. See also comment #2 in major criticisms.
- line 84 - was there a control group? the current description of treatment groups only includes the 0.1, 1, and 10 mg/L ALC.
- line 84 - how were the ALC concentrations chosen? Need to justify why these concentrations and how they are relevant to humans.
- line 88 - how was the 'chasing stress' chosen? Has this stress method been validated in previous studies? Need to justify.
- lines 90-91 - according to the provided description the control group was not subjected to chasing stress. Why this was the case?
- line 94 - need to mention if the groups were alternated. See comment #3 in major criticisms.
- line 129 - why were the brains pooled? The zebrafish brain is typically ~5 mg, which is more than enough tissue to measure TBARS and antioxidant levels. please justify.
- Please provide more details on TBARS assay. See comment #4 in major criticisms.
- line 149 - why were not glutathione levels measured? GSH is a major antioxidant and has been one of the commonly used oxidative biomarkers in fish species.
- line 158 - SOD and CAT are rarely affected by oxidative stress conditions in fish. Why were not GR and GPx activities measured instead (or in addition). GR is a much more sensitive biomarker than SOD/CAT.
6. Results:
- The results section should be better organized and separated into sections (e.g. behavior, antioxidants, oxidative damage, etc) for better clarity.
7. Discussion:
- The discussion is somewhat general and does not properly explain why the 0.1 mg/L ALC was more effective than 10 mg/L. Also, are the obtained results relevant to human patients? How is the antioxidant properties of ALC compare to other common antioxidants? Given the availability of numerous antioxidants on the market, how can inclusion of ALC supplements be relevant for improving outcomes?
8. Conclusion:
- The authors mention 'neurochemical homeostasis', but neurochemicals were not actually assessed in this study. See comment #7 in major criticisms.


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: ANXIOLYTIC AND ANTI-STRESS EFFECTS OF ACUTE ADMINISTRATION OF ACETYL-L-CARNITINE IN ZEBRAFISH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed most of my issues.
Experimental design: The authors have addressed most of my issues.
Validity of the findings: The authors have addressed most of my issues.
Additional comments: The authors have attempted to revise the manuscript, however, the following still needs to be addressed.

Zebrafish (Danio rerio, F. Hamilton 1822) have emerged as a suitable model organism in the field of mental disorders
-This is an overstatement and should be revised or removed.  The line following this is more accurate.

The novel tank test is used to evaluate locomotor and exploratory activities and corresponds to the open-field test in rodents, whereas the light/dark test evaluates anxiety based on the innate preference of zebrafish for dark instead of bright spaces

-this is still not correct.  An open field test in zebrafish corresponds to an open field test in rodents.  The novel tank diving test is based on an anti-predatory defense mechanism that causes fish to swim at the bottom of the tank.  As anxiety-like behaviour is decreased they swim higher in the water column.  This is an excellent test of anxiety-like behaviour and does not correspond to the open-field test in rodents.
-secondly, the light/dark test evaluates anxiety based on the innate preference of adult zebrafish to prefer dark over light areas.  Larval zebrafish have been shown to demonstrate a light preference.


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: ANXIOLYTIC AND ANTI-STRESS EFFECTS OF ACUTE ADMINISTRATION OF ACETYL-L-CARNITINE IN ZEBRAFISH
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: - There are a few awkward sentences in the manuscript. I would recommend that the authors ask a native English speaker to go through the manuscript.
- The context should be further improved.
Experimental design: - The investigation is not as rigorous as one would hope.
- Some methods are incorrect.
Validity of the findings: - Data is not robust to support the conclusions.
- The anxiolytic effects are speculative and are not supported by biochemical data.
- Insufficient replication of the experiments.
Additional comments: The revised ms by Pancotto et al. is slightly improved from the original version, but unfortunately several of the major issues that were raised by reviewer #2 were not adequately addressed. I regret to inform that I cannot recommend this manuscript for acceptance at this point.

Major concerns:

1. According to the authors, the experiments were repeated on only 2 batches of animals. This is an insufficient replication number. All experiments, no matter how tedious and frustrating, must be repeated 3 independent times!
a. This is especially important for behavioral assays. Our behavioral battery consists of 4 different behavioral tests. We conduct these tests using at least 3 independent cohorts of fish with 10 males and 10 females per treatment. So, we have at least 30 fish of each sex by after testing with 3 cohorts of fish. And even then the variation across fish and cohorts is quite large. Moreover, if cohort 1 showed a particular trend, the next cohort may or may not show the same trend. It is extremely important to test behavioral endpoints (just like any other endpoint) with at least 3 independent cohorts!
b. The authors claim that space was an issue and so they could not repeat the experiments with 3 cohorts. I don't find this excuse appropriate, especially since most fish were sacrificed after the experiments described in the manuscript, which would have created space to house additional fish and perform the experiments one more time.
c. Biochemical parameters should also be repeated with fish from 3 independent cohorts to make sure that the reported results are accurate.

2. The authors claim that there were not significant sex differences and therefore the data were pooled together. Although there may not be sex differences, the data MUST be separated by sex, to provide a more accurate picture. This applies to both behavioral and biochemical parameters. Besides, sex differences may become more apparent if the experiments are repeated with another cohort of fish. Also, some tissues were pooled together for analysis, were males pooled with males and females with females, or was it done at random?
In our experience, there are always behavioral differences related to sex. Females appear much more susceptible to handling/netting stress and take longer to recover during the behavioral tests. Therefore, ALC may have differential potency in males and females. Please separate all results by sex (even if no significant difference are apparent) and explain in the manuscript that sex was considered as a factor!

3. The reported anxiolytic effects must be supported by biochemical data! Although the behavioral data suggests that ALC has anxiolytic properties, these results are highly speculative. The behavioral tests depend a lot on locomotion and vision, and so any effects of these two parameters will skew the results. For example, perhaps ALC somehow interferes with vision in the light and dark test, and therefore the fish are unable to detect the lighting difference as efficiently as the control fish.
It was previously suggest to examine the cortisol levels, which would be a more direct and stress-related biochemical parameter that would offer a less speculative view. The authors response to this suggestion was that there are insufficient funds to perform such studies. I find this excuse inappropriate. All labs, not matter how big, have financial considerations. An ELISA assay for cortisol would cost around $500 (which is less than the publication fee of Peer J). Alternatively, the authors can form collaborations with labs that routinely measure cortisol levels in zebrafish. Without cortisol data the authors would have to remove anxiolytic/stress from the title and other sections of the manuscript.

4. The lipid peroxidation remains an issue! I find it highly unbelievable that 10 min stress will result in 1.5 fold increase in lipid peroxidation in the brain. The TBARS assay specifically has been heavily criticized in the literature because it is not very specific. As a person who performed this assay, I would not totally discredit this assay; however, every precaution must be taken to minimize the 'unspecificity' of this test. inclusion of BHT in the reaction mixture is a must, as it reduced the extent of lipid damage during 30 min at boiling temperature. Without BHT, the lipid peroxidation will be overestimated, which I suspect is the case in the current manuscript. Moreover, butanol extraction must be included. This is especially of concern for tissues because of presence of blood/hemoglobin that absorbs at similar wavelength as MDA. Without butanol extraction, the lipid peroxidation will be overestimated.
The fact in previous papers the TBARS assay was performed without BHT or butanol extraction is not an appropriate excuse not to perform this assay correctly, especially with such surprising results (i.e. 1.5 fold increase in lipid peroxidation after 10 min of stress). The TBARS assay must be repeated correctly, if the authors want the readers to believe that their results are accurate.

Minor concerns:

1. There are a few awkward sentences throughout the manuscript. I would recommend the authors to have their manuscript read by a native English speaker.
2. I think additional experimental details would be great, especially specifying the number of times the experiments were independently repeated, the sex composition of fish that are being used for various assays, etc.


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: CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN SOCIALLY HOUSED SUMATRAN ORANGUTANS (PONGO ABELII)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Let’s make up! – Conflict resolution in socially housed Sumatran orangutans (Pongo abelii)
Kathrin S Kopp, Katja Liebal (PeerJ – 2018)

This study is definitely of interest, because the orangutan is generally considered semi-social, or mostly solitary, so its social tendencies and capacities have been neglected. Conflict resolution is basically a potential that they don’t need much in the wild. So, why would they have it?

This question is barely addressed in the paper. One possibility is that orangutans used to be, long ago, more social, and live now (perhaps under human influence) more solitary lives. I have seen this speculation before, and would hope that the authors can discuss it in the introduction and Discussion. It would make conflict resolution a vestigial capacity.

The text often speaks about being the first to produce this study, or these data, but this kind of priority claim would be better left out. The paper is also overly long and sometimes too detailed for a scientific paper, as if a long phd thesis has been condensed into an article. I would cut even more. For example, the data on agonistic or pacific interventions don’t add much and you might consider reducing or suppressing these parts so that the paper focuses more on postconflict contacts and their function.

The sample size is relatively small (N=114), which cannot be helped, but constrains the conclusiveness of this study.

The title is a bit too popular sounding.

Specific comments

•	l. 96 “mail” should be “main.”
•	l. 161 aggression rate is compared by dyad, but this has the problem that dyads are not independent data points, although the stats test treats them as such. Each individual is represented in several dyads. The way this can be solved and evaluated statistically is with a random permutation analysis.
•	l. 231 “proportion of agreement between both raters of 87%” – I would prefer to see a Kappa coefficient.
•	l. 263 “All forced copulations but one occurred in the indoor enclosure in winter and most of them were preceded by an audible disturbance from either noisy visitors or a distressed groupmate.” – This has little to do with the topic at hand, but would be great as a separate study, especially if you could include other captive groups, because it suggests that forced copulations are not about sex but the product of stress or tension.
•	Section 3.1 Do we need third party interventions in this paper?
•	l. 360, it is a bit confusing to see that indoors individuals are separated by mesh yet have apparently fights and reconciliations. I have trouble seeing how this works, and it might be good to explain.
•	I thought the description of the female-female reconciliation after Walter’s copulation was interesting.

•	l. 465 These interventions are described as impartial, but all I see is that they are pacific, not impartial. This is of course your point, so better explain that you are questioning the original definition.
•	l. 483 “For the first time” -- Please, avoid these claims, they are annoying.
•	Figures 1, 3 and 4 are unneeded.
•	Figure 2, It is confusing that the various individuals are at different locations in both diagrams. It makes the comparison difficult.
•	Table 2: Previous studies have compared these behavioral frequency distributions (chi-square of pooled data) to see if postconflict behavior is different from control behavior. Did you do this? I may have overlooked.
Experimental design: See above
Validity of the findings: See above
Additional comments: See above


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

Input:
Title: CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN SOCIALLY HOUSED SUMATRAN ORANGUTANS (PONGO ABELII)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written. The authors report that they have demonstrated reconciliation in orangutans, a Great Ape species in which the process has not yet been shown. The lack of finding is probably partly because orangutans are semi-solitary and would not be observed under social conditions that would promote reconciliation. The authors took advantage of a zoo population living in a group to conduct the tests. As such, the results can only be generalized to this somewhat artificial zoo situation. The piece does add to the body of literature on reconciliation and the authors frame their introduction and references well. However, I have some questions concerning some of the methods, analyses and interpretation.
Experimental design: Methods
There were two subgroups. The authors should state why they were separated during the winter. In any case, the authors need to describe the flexible mesh between the two indoor enclosures in very great detail. The animals could fight between it and affiliate between it, especially since most of the PCs were recorded indoors. Would it discourage interactions in the MCs and PCs? How do two animals embrace through the mesh? Such interference would make the comparisons of types of reconciliation behavior moot. The authors state the mesh may have prevented them from seeing PCTAs (Lines 537-540), but it also may have prevented them from seeing many, many other interactions. Also, could the mesh have emboldened animals to fight if there would be no retribution? Suma had no aggression outside but aggressed against four individuals indoors. If the mesh increased the probability of fights, then all of the interpretations concerning a density effect are confounded.

The authors conduct a social network analysis (Figure 2), but do not state the particulars of how they ran it in the Data analysis section of the Methods (Lines 277-280). Also, a reader unfamiliar with SNA would not know what vertices and edges were. These should be explained.

Analyses
For the indoor versus outdoor analysis, the authors compared hourly rates of aggression for each "directed dyad" (Line 162). What is a directed dyad? Also, why use a dyadic test (Lines 162-163)? There is usually some justification as to why a test is conducted at the dyadic level rather than at the subject level (N = 6): the average rate for each subject indoors and outdoors. The Wilcoxon test (Line 276) has an "n" of 14. The authors should state where that came from. After consulting the social network analysis, I saw that 14 animals initiated aggression to others out of 30 possible pairs. This should be stated. Further, rates of aggression were reported as "average aggression rate across dyads (number of aggression per hour of observation)" (Lines 272 to 276). The authors report means but these were not what was actually compared. The authors used a nonparametric Wilcoxon test, which effectively compares medians. Perhaps medians should be reported. To directly compare means, a parametric test (e.g., t test) would need to be conducted.

In describing the PC/MC analysis, the authors state that they compared the attracted versus dispersed pairs using proportions of PCs and MCs as in Fraser and Aureli (2008). Using proportions was more appropriate for Fraser and Aureli because they did not include a subject in analyses unless it had at least three PCMC pairs. In fact, in many such studies using the PCMC method, the authors state that an animal has to have at least a certain number of PCs to be included in analysis (e.g., Castles & Whiten, 1998). Otherwise, proportions become meaningless. Walter is a good example. He only received one aggression and it resulted in an attracted pair, so the authors gave him 1.0 proportion of attracted pairs and 0.0 proportion of dispersed pairs (Figure 5). This is a very misleading analysis. There were three categories of response (attracted, dispersed and neutral). Unless Walter had at least three PCs he does not get a chance to be categorized into each category. And if Walter's one PC happened to be dispersed, the proportions would wildly swing in the opposite direction (0.0 attracted and 1.0 dispersed). Walter should be removed from a "by subject" analysis. If Walter is removed and a Wilcoxon test is conducted on the remaining proportions, the Wilcoxon test is still significant. Another option would be to run a pooled analysis of frequencies across subjects (as in de Waal & Yoshihara, 1983) and conduct a Chi-square test comparing the number of attracted to dispersed pairs against an expected ratio of 1:1. However, a pooled analysis would also be problematic because one subject (Tao) was responsible for more than half (55%) of the attracted pairs. One subject's data should not have so much influence. Further, the authors state that Toba's second most targeted victim was her daughter Tao (24 instances). The whole study might boil down to a young daughter interacting with her mother after receiving aggression from her, which the authors state was usually low-intensity aggression in a weaning context.

I recreated the frequency of attracted, dispersed and neutral pair for each subject below:

	Sub	Att	Dis	Neu	Total
	D	7	6	9	22
	E	1	0	4	5
	S	2	0	5	7
	Ta	17	10	5	32
	To	3	0	0	3
	W	1	0	0	1
	Tot	31	16	23	70

Comparing the attracted and dispersed frequencies, it does not look like an overwhelming case for reconciliation in orangutans. The median difference between attracted and dispersed pairs was 1.5 more attracted pairs than dispersed pairs. Perhaps the phrase in the title ("Let's make up!") is overstating the results a bit.

Lines 219 to 222: Please explain this test. What is an "undirected dyad"? Was it a PCMC analysis of proportion of attracted versus dispersed pairs in the first two minutes after the fight? If so, there are the same problems with proportions as mentioned above. Probably more so on a dyadic level. I still do not understand this test when it is reported in Results (Lines 349-350). Please explain in detail.

Lines 289 and 294: I do not understand the difference between the context of aggression "spontaneously" and "not determinable." If something was seemingly spontaneous, then the context cannot be determined. Was "not determinable" due to observational issues rather than context? The authors should explain the difference.

The authors start out with 114 aggressive interactions (Line 245) and end up with 70 PCMC pairs (Line 337). Apparently, coerced aggression was removed, but that leaves more than 70 fights. The authors should state how they arrived at 70 PCMC pairs.

The authors cite Aureli et al. (1989) as justification for considering all contacts within the first two minutes of aggression as reconciliation (Lines 352-354). The authors should explain this choice without the reader needing to go back and read Aureli et al. (1989). Was there a significant difference in minutes one and two? What was the criterion/rationale?

The authors report a difference in reconciliation indoors and outdoors (Lines 355-359), but do not conduct a statistical test on this difference. They should do so. If not, all of the references to a density effect on reconciliation in the Discussion is purely descriptive and should be stated as such.

In the vignette reported in Lines 360-365, the authors state that no PC was possible for this interaction. I do not understand. Djamuna was the victim. Shouldn't the authors have just focused on her for 10 minutes like all the other PCs? Certainly, Walter influenced any possible interaction between Djamuna and Toba, but this was the case between the two combatants and other animals in the group for all of the PCs. Also, the authors mention a reunion between Toba and Djamuna. How long after the initial aggression was this? Was it within the 10-minute PC period?
Validity of the findings: Interpretation
The authors imply differences in specific behavior categories in PC versus MC (Lines 387-393), but no statistical tests are conducted. Can the authors make statistical comparisons to support these statements? Again, in the Discussion, they report these differences (Lines 518-527), but these are not tested differences and descriptive observations of low numbers at best. The authors corroborate the results with other theoretical works (Lines 523-527), but the highly descriptive results do not seem justified.

The authors state "Aggressive interactions increased both in frequency and intensity under less spacious conditions" (Line 436). No tests of intensity were conducted or even described that I can see. Also concerning the density analysis, the authors state "the frequency of third party interventions to cease ongoing conflicts and reconciliation increased, both within and between the subgroups" (Lines 438-439). This was not tested either. A density effect on reconciliation was mentioned a second time (Line 447), but, again, this was not tested. The authors should acknowledge that these are not tested findings but their interpretation of very descriptive data.

Minor Points
Line 112: The observers could not know the intent of the actor "in order to cause bodily injury." Perhaps this should not be part of the definition.

Lines 314-317: The authors state that seven interventions involved aggression. When I add them up, it totals to eight.

Lines 439-441: The authors might also wish to consult Aureli and de Waal (1997) as another study of crowding in Great Apes (chimpanzees).
Additional comments: I think the data are publishable with some clarification of methods and analyses, and more circumspect interpretation of results.


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: CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN SOCIALLY HOUSED SUMATRAN ORANGUTANS (PONGO ABELII)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: See attached .pdf.
Experimental design: See attached .pdf.
Validity of the findings: See attached .pdf.
Additional comments: See attached .pdf.


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: CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN SOCIALLY HOUSED SUMATRAN ORANGUTANS (PONGO ABELII)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I think the paper is greatly improved., I have no further comments.
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: See above
Additional comments: See above


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

Input:
Title: CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN SOCIALLY HOUSED SUMATRAN ORANGUTANS (PONGO ABELII)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I think the revised article now meets these standards.
Experimental design: I think the revised article now meets these standards.
Validity of the findings: I think the revised article now meets these standards.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed my comments and concerns. I think the paper is much improved by following the Reviewers’ recommendations.

I have a few minor changes and comments.
Throughout: When “third party” stands alone (e.g., “contacted a third party”), it should not have a hyphen, but when it is a two-word modifier of another word (e.g., “third-party interventions”) it should be hyphenated.

Lines numbers refer to the track changes version of the document.
Line 59: ‘has” should be “have”
Line 324: “results” should be “resulted”
Line 325: “signals” should be “signaled”
Line 981: Change “0.5” to “0.50”

Line 1018: A quote is provided but is no longer attributed to anyone.
Line 1200: A reference has been removed.


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: CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN SOCIALLY HOUSED SUMATRAN ORANGUTANS (PONGO ABELII)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Thank you for your thorough replies to my earlier comments, and the corresponding revisions to the manuscript. The main structural and methodological concerns I raised were addressed, resulting in a more interesting, well-framed paper. I agree with authors’ point (lines 1190-1191) - it’s an exciting starting point for orangutan conflict resolution research! My primary remaining concern: in an effort to thoughtfully consider and integrate the editor’s/reviewers’ comments, I worry the manuscript is generally a bit long and could be even more cohesive. I feel that this can be easily resolved by some paring down and editing, and am therefore happy to recommend this manuscript for publication. Just a few specific points:

- The introduction reads somewhat like a dissertation (especially the opening lines 46-49) and tends to jump around a bit. There are still occasional typos (e.g., lines 57-58, 224, 239) and the language is awkward at times (e.g., line 269: we derived the following predictions in order to test them in the present study --> we derived/tested the following predictions).
- I see that the introduction (lines 202-221) now emphasizes variation in sociability—and I think this is a nice direction. However, it’s unclear to me whether your predictions stem from the hypothesis that conflict resolution was present in the last shared ancestor of all hominids, or can be explained on a more proximate level (e.g., coping with increasingly crowded conditions in zoos/rehab centers in part due to habitat loss/fragmentation). Of course these are not mutually exclusive, but it might be nice to be more clear here, perhaps by specifying proximate/ultimate explanations.
- Lines 448-450: I still think it would be useful to indicate the unique information each approach provides—i.e., why are these the recommended methods in combination?


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: PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PERIODONTITIS ARE MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP UPPER URINARY TRACT STONE: A NATION-WIDE POPULATION-BASED EIGHT-YEAR FOLLOW UP STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written,unambiguous and falls well within the scope of the journal. However, there are several typo and grammatical errors in the manuscript. Language edited certificate  from Class'A' language editing company is recommended before publishing the article.The study is presented and published as an abstract abstract i in the Journal of Urology (2013)( http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(13)02278-7/abstract) as a conference abstract and can be mentioned in the manuscript.
Experimental design: the experimental design is fine.
Validity of the findings: The observations are supported
Additional comments: Please see some of the grammatical and typographical errors in the tracked manuscript. It is better to get it edited for clarity.


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: PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PERIODONTITIS ARE MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP UPPER URINARY TRACT STONE: A NATION-WIDE POPULATION-BASED EIGHT-YEAR FOLLOW UP STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Needs language editing
Table 2 seems confusing...need more clarification
Experimental design: well defined research with sufficient detail
Validity of the findings: Discussion part on relationship between chronic periodontitis & UUTI needs to be clearly stated.
Additional comments: needs language editing


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: PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PERIODONTITIS ARE MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP UPPER URINARY TRACT STONE: A NATION-WIDE POPULATION-BASED EIGHT-YEAR FOLLOW UP STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Investigators evaluated the association between chronic periodontitis (CP) and kidney stones (UUTS) and report that CP increases the risk of kidney stones significantly independent of key covariates such as age, gender, and diabetes etc.
Experimental design: This is an 8-year follow-up study embedded within a national insurance database in Taiwan.  The exposed group is the ones with ICD codes for CP (N=16,292).  Controls were randomly selected (do not know how exactly) subjects without CP (N=48,876).  Over a roughly 8 year follow-up, the risk of UUTS was 1% higher in the CP group which was statistically significant (HR=1.14, 95% CI, 1.08–1.20, p < 0.001) which remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, hypertension, and diabetes.
Validity of the findings: The study is well conducted and is large.  The analysis is appropriate.  The results are presented clearly and logically.

Are the methods used to detect the absence of CP in the 'controls' is the same as that used for the CP group obtained from the insurance data?  That can influence the findings.

There is only a 1% increase in UUTS and that can very well be due to chance as the study involved thousands.  This needs to be discussed.  A strong biological model how the CP might increase UUTS is also a worthy discussion.

However, the external validity of the study is supported by the findings that the CP group had significantly higher diabetes as expected.
Additional comments: The first word in the abstract is a typo.  Careful review and revision would enhance the quality of 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: PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PERIODONTITIS ARE MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP UPPER URINARY TRACT STONE: A NATION-WIDE POPULATION-BASED EIGHT-YEAR FOLLOW UP STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript needs to be edited by an individual fluent in the English language.
Literature references don't give full support background to hamper the research question.
Experimental design: The research question is skewed. While the authors justify, in a sustained way, the association of PTH levels elevation in periodontitis patients, the association of uric acid metabolism with periodontitis is merely an attempt without scientific support. I would suggest the authors put more effort in first to guarantee this association of uric acid metabolite with periodontal disease prior to any further assumption.

The authors didn't consider obesity, hyperuricemia, family history of stone disease and dietary habits as possible confounders, and those are important characteristics to minimize selection and analysis biases.

This manuscript should be reviewed by a biostatistician to ensure the statistical analyses are appropriate. Why did the authors decide for a frequency matched 1:3? Did you perform any statistical test to get score matching to select controls?
Validity of the findings: Although this can be considered a novelty and the robust data, this paper has serious flaws and the authors must consider tune down the statements such as ‘CP increase the risk of developing UUTS’.
Additional comments: I would suggest the authors put more effort in first to guarantee this association of uric acid metabolite with periodontal disease prior to any further assumption. Please respond to the questions referred.


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: PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PERIODONTITIS ARE MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP UPPER URINARY TRACT STONE: A NATION-WIDE POPULATION-BASED EIGHT-YEAR FOLLOW UP STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Article is more clearly stated and  language editing done as stated before
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Conclusion is well stated
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: PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PERIODONTITIS ARE MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP UPPER URINARY TRACT STONE: A NATION-WIDE POPULATION-BASED EIGHT-YEAR FOLLOW UP STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have addressed the previous concerns and have obtained the help of a Native English speaker to edit the manuscript.
Experimental design: Appropriate.
Validity of the findings: Statistically significant 1% increase in the outcome in CP group may still be due to the large sample size. Is it clinically meaningful?
Additional comments: Adequate revisions.


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: PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC PERIODONTITIS ARE MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP UPPER URINARY TRACT STONE: A NATION-WIDE POPULATION-BASED EIGHT-YEAR FOLLOW UP STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I acknowledge that the authors improved the english, but this paper still needs professional English assessment.
Experimental design: All experimental questions were answered.
Validity of the findings: Nonthing to declare.
Additional comments: I acknowledge that the authors improved the English, but this paper still needs professional English assessment.


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 PERIODICAL CICADA FOUR-YEAR ACCELERATION HYPOTHESIS REVISITED AND THE POLYPHYLETIC NATURE OF BROOD V, INCLUDING AN UPDATED CROWD-SOURCE ENHANCED MAP (HEMIPTERA: CICADIDAE: MAGICICADA)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper presents new information that is one part in a much bigger puzzle about the evolution of periodic cicada.  Although each piece has merit on its own, without providing more context it is not possible for a non-expert in periodic cicadas to really understand this current study. Thus the manuscript needs expanding to provide background and detail. But, more importantly, the paper also needs to present clearly stated expectations/predictions of the hypotheses being investigated (see box below called "2. Experimental design").

Please expand to provide background
4. For example in the methods the authors say records of adult cicada emergence were used to map the distribution of Brood V  (lines 69-70) and then nine references are provided for studies using the same method, but without a summary of the “method” it is unclear if the procedure involved anything more than that described in the following sentences (find a singing adult cicada, identify it to species level (using morphology or sound?), and write down the location as gps point?).
5. Another example where greater background is required is Figure 6, that presents distribution of haplotypes, but there are no networks or trees to show the relationships of these haplotypes.
6. And the authors need to explain why it would be expected for two distinct cicada species to have the same mitochondrial haplotype lineage! (Lines 141-142).
7. Do 17-year cicada populations change into 13-year cicada populations? Or do 17-4 become 17-year on a new cycle?  How would you tell the difference between these two scenarios? Explain what each hypothesis would predict and why you can exclude one or the other.
8. Why no information about host species?  17 years eating plants – the distribution of the host species might matter?
Experimental design: importantly, the paper also needs to present clearly stated expectations/predictions of the hypotheses being investigated.

The hypothesis of parent-offspring relationships between cicada broods is the focus of this work. However, the authors do not say how they could discriminate among hypotheses. After reading the manuscript I felt that detailed distribution maps were not enough to test the existing four-year acceleration hypotheses.
1. Although some mtDNA data is presented it is not clear that the limited diversity is enough to differentiate among hypotheses (no networks shown). If the mtDNA is enough – then present this in the introduction as a prediction figure or as possible alternatives that are expected under different scenarios.
2. Nuclear markers would seem appropriate. What do they tell us?
3. If nuclear markers are not available then perhaps host plant species’ distributions or climate data could be presented? If a large number of individual cicada all switch in the same year (and emerge 4-years early/late) then one would predict the area involved would have a distinct climatic (or host species?) feature not seen outside of the region?  I recommend using some simple climate models with (clearly stated) prediction that “watersheds” of interest will be distinctive from areas where the cicada brood didn’t switch.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Minor
Line 31: be explicit that the “puzzle pieces” refer to the distribution map in the US of adult cicada emergence
Line 55: consider rephrasing
Line 58: proximity to (or in contact with) Broods ….
line 80: tautology
Line 124: I recommend not beginning a sentence with “Our map shows”. Here and elsewhere the sentence can start with the observation/result: “The distribution of emergence of adults of Brood V cicadas consists…” and the figure number placed at the end of the sentence. See also line 214
Line 232: Explain “watershed”
Lines 279-298: Too much detail. I sugest you add this information to an annotated figure.


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

Input:
Title: THE PERIODICAL CICADA FOUR-YEAR ACCELERATION HYPOTHESIS REVISITED AND THE POLYPHYLETIC NATURE OF BROOD V, INCLUDING AN UPDATED CROWD-SOURCE ENHANCED MAP (HEMIPTERA: CICADIDAE: MAGICICADA)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This is a nicely researched, comprehensive study of one of the major 'broods' of Magicicada showing a detailed distribution with focus on the particularly interesting areas of parapatry with other broods.  The study also shows the good use of crowd sourced data that are important for the comprehensive mapping effort. The text could be slightly more clear at the beginning pointing out the presumption of in situ (anagenetic) change versus the movement of populations with fixed life cycles into new areas, which could also result in the apparent switch, but apparently is not considered. It would also be good to comment on how these broods exclude each other physically. For example, why could you not have a mass emergence in an area every, say, 5 years? I think most readers not familiar with this system would appreciate some basics about the general thinking of cicada research. The life cycle switching hypotheses at the end of the paper are entirely descriptive and hypothetical, so I wonder what is gained from them. There is no avenue shown for how they may be tested.  The paper says that the study will provide "key insights into the tension between life cycle plasticity and selection for strict brood cohesiveness" but this seems a rather empty statement based on the data generated here and the discussion of these data. What exactly can we learn about plasticity and selection? Perhaps these mapping studies are simply intriguing because of the curious life cycle phenomenon and the awareness of these cicadas in the general public, but if there is such general evolutionary or ecological question to be addressed based on the mapping exercises it may be interesting to be more specific.


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: ORNAMENTATION OF DERMAL BONES OF METOPOSAURUS KRASIEJOWENSIS AND ITS ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript unfortunately appears to overlook much of the modern literature on both modern and fossil amphibians. This is reflected in various easily-remedied nomenclatural errors throughout the text as well as more serious errors in amphibian evolution and osteology. In particular, the authors appear to ignore substantial literature on modern amphibian morphology, osteology, development, polyphenism, and histology. As a result, the context used to interpret the variation observed here is generally not consistent with the current state of the field. In some cases, the criteria used to distinguish between interpretations do not have any basis in the literature or in amphibian biology more generally. A discussion of polyphenism without any reference at all to the extensive work on polyphenism in the mole salamander complex Ambystoma, or in Hynobius, or even in classic anuran systems such as Hyla or Pelobates, seems to be a major oversight. Similarly, there is an extensive literature on dermal ossifications in amphibians, reptiles, and fossil early tetrapods, and that has not been referenced here either.
Experimental design: The data which are the basis for this study are categorical scores for a number of variables. In a few cases, measurements are taken. A series of biplots are presented and then a principle components analysis is used to combine these data into a single ordination space.  I am concerned about several things: the independence of different metrics measured here, the appropriateness of the methods used for analysis, and the manner in which these results and subsequently interpreted. The data as collected here are themselves highly nonindependent. For example, the authors treat “average polygon diameter/avg ridge width,” “polygon size,” and “polygon shape” as different independent metrics. The first two metrics are obviously not independent at all, and the shape of a polygon will likely affect the diameter, depending on how diameter is measured (i.e. an oblong polygon may have a different diameter than an equilateral one). As a result, some of the comparisons themselves were essentially meaningless (e.g. Figure 7, where percents of hexagonal and pentagonal polygons are plotted against each other, producing a line that corresponds to y=1-x. This is essentially tautological: %hexagonal and % pentagonal polygons together should add up to approximately 100%, minus a handful of polygons that do not fit these categories. Furthermore, some of these measures are means but the errors are not reported and do not appear to be incorporated into the analysis. This has a very real potential to bias the results.
This nonindependence of measurements makes it difficult to interpret the ordination space produced in the PCA. PCA is not an ideal metric for categorical data; PCoA or NMMDS might be a more appropriate ordination method. I would also prefer to see ordinations of the sculpture data and the cranial morphometric data done separately in order to compare the clustering achieved from skeletal morphometrics to the clustering achieved from the sculpture data. That, to me, would be more convincing than the approach taken here. Finally, when conducting a PCA OR PCoA, your number of samples should exceed the degrees of freedom of the underlying dataset. This is a rule that many workers ignore, but this limits the inferential power of the PCA as conducted here.
Another thing to think about is that much of the metrics taken here are mean measurements of diameter and so on. Distribution of shape may be a more important factor here than mean shape. In my initial skim of the paper, I thought this was actually what had been undertaken, but was disappointed to find that it was not. Something like a semi-landmark approach where each cell is traced and registered so that the complete interclavicle is represented by a distribution of points in morphospace rather than a single mean point. These distributions could then be compared in a more meaningful manner than simple means. In other words, I think the underlying question could be quite interesting, but the execution here is lacking.
Validity of the findings: Given my criticisms of the methods and context, I am not confident that the findings are valid. The statistical treatments are not conclusive. However, the possible hypotheses these methods are supposed to differentiate between are never clearly stated and the basis for accepting or rejecting alternative hypotheses are not sufficiently supported or justified with reference to the literature. Some of this could be addressed by moving parts of the discussion into the introduction, but some of the inferential work is not actually consistent with the current body of knowledge in either modern amphibians or their fossil relatives.
Additional comments: I have read the manuscript “Ornamentation of dermal bones of Metoposaurus krasiejowensis and its ecological implications.” The authors conduct a multivariate analysis of bone sculpture of an assemblage of temnospondyls from the Triassic of Poland, finding two morphotypes. They then explore possible ecological implications of these two morphotypes, suggesting that these may represent an obligate aquatic population and an obligate terrestrial population living in the same area. A number of workers have speculated on the importance of bone sculpture both for the physiology of early tetrapods as well as for taxonomy, so a detailed study of this would be a welcome addition to the literature. However, I am skeptical of the methodology used in this particular study. I am also not satisfied that the authors provide sufficient and accurate context from both fossil and modern amphibians for their interpretations.  As a result, I cannot recommend publication of this manuscript at this time.

I am sorry that this review is not more positive. I think the underlying question here (i.e. what does dermal bone sculpturing in temnospondyls represent?) is an interesting one. I am not sure a collection with a sample size of n=18 is the best test case, but I can imagine some ways to examine this in more detail even with the current taxonomic sample, including methods that would not require a substantial amount of additional legwork so long as all specimens are photographed in standard positions. However, drawing conclusions will be difficult with a small dataset such as this, and requires dealing directly with a lot of the modern literature on amphibian skeletal biology, which the authors do not do. I also think the authors need to end their interpretations earlier, at the presence of two skeletal morphs (if that conclusion is upheld) rather than drawing interpretations about different terrestrial and aquatic lineages with all of the detailed speculation following that inference. Much of the biological and evolutionary interpretation appears to be derived from first principles rather than reference to actual biology of living or extinct animals, which leads me to question whether the criteria proposed by the authors have any basis at all.

Again, I apologize that this is not a more positive review. I hope the authors will be able to take these comments in stride and restructure this study in a manner which is more likely to produce interpretable results. I do think the authors have an interesting question, but I think that a more sophisticated approach to both data collection and analysis as well as the biological context are necessary before this is publishable.


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: ORNAMENTATION OF DERMAL BONES OF METOPOSAURUS KRASIEJOWENSIS AND ITS ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The data presented in this article are important and should be published. However, the current presentation is incoherent and somewhat disorganized, so it is difficult to understand what these data about metoposaur ornamentation may be telling us—indeed, I am not sure the authors of the paper are certain of that. So, there needs to be a substantial rewrite and reorganization of this article. I suggest the following: (1) present the ornamentation data as is mostly done already, but eliminate the PCI as it is unnecessary and shows nothing that bivariate plots or histograms cannot show; (2) analyze the distribution of the ornamentation types and other parameters of the Krasiejow metoposaurs—in other words, make it very clear what correlates with what in these metoposaurs; (3) present a  clear discussion of what the possible significance of these distributional data is; (4) choose the most likely conclusion about the significance.

Spencer G. Lucas

My more specific suggestiosn are keyed to numbers on the pdf:

1.	Also see Lucas 2015 in Ann Soc Geol Pol.
2.	I think the PCI is not needed. It tells us nothing that cannot be more easily obtained from simple plotting.
3.	What about the two subspecies of Metoposaurus from Krasiejow named by Sulej? What is their relationship to this?
4.	I don’t understand the possible separation, given that this is one metoposaur bonebed that is being analyzed?  What is the basis for either geographic or stratigraphic separation in the sample?
5.	There is no coherent argument here.
6.	What is “T2”?
7.	Barite in pores? Why isn’t this simply a function of diagenesis or post-diagenesis?
8.	Is there a correlation between dermal bone structure and limb bone length?
9.	Not a  metoposaur.
10.	Explain how?
11.	So, there is a hypothetical Late Triassic waterbody somewhere else that the actual Krasiejow bonebed? How can we know what amphibians lived there?
12.	These comments on isolated skulls are anecdotal at best. What about variation in the large sample of skulls of Koskinonodon described by Lucas et al. 2016 (NMMNH Bulletin)?
13.	I don’t follow this conclusion—it was not developed in previous text.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: See earlier comments
Additional comments: See earlier 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: ORNAMENTATION OF DERMAL BONES OF METOPOSAURUS KRASIEJOWENSIS AND ITS ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript entitled "Ornamentation of dermal bones of Metoposaurus krasiejowensis and its ecological implications" by Mateusz Antczak and Adam Bodzioch is fairly well written and organized but has a number of shortcomings - see below - that I think need to be addressed before re-submission. The English language appears to be sufficient (with minor errors) and the necessary literature is well covered

(1) Presentation of data:  If the manuscript is submitted as a Latex file, all tables should be included by means of Latex formatting styles and not as badly resolved raster images. Additionally all data tables should be included as separate data files (txt, xls or else) – so that they can be readily accessed by the reviewers and other researchers.

(2) Inclusion of photos/interpretation drawings for all included dermal bones: In order to reproduce the measurements and character codings presented in the data tables 1-5 it would be helpful, if not necessary, to illustrate all of the ornamentation patterns that form the basis of these datasets - preferably for each specimen with inclusion of (a) a photo and (b) a vector-graphic-like interpretation drawing of the ornamentation patterns (as figure or supplemental file).
-----
Experimental design: (3) The derivation of two morphotypes from the provided dataset is not fully clear and appears to be based on certain groupings/clusters visible in certain variable plots and principal component plots - plus the arbitrary decision that some of the data points shall belong to group A and the others to group B. The authors should decide _before_ doing any of the analyses whether

(a) they have no clear a priori way of distinction between different morphologies and now want to find out via some method of (unsupervised) classification based on their newly raised data if there are any clearly separable groups or

(b) they follow the idea that there is a clearly visible (qualitative) difference between two or more morphologies which is taken as given and shall be tested by means of multivariate analysis based on morphometric data

If they choose (a) cluster analyses (with varying linkage algorithms and distance measures) could be the method of choice to have an unbiased way of distinction between groups; if the authors choose (b) they could use e.g. PCAs/bivariate plots for illustrating differences between predefined groups (what they already did) and  (multivariate) analyses of variance for testing. In the present version of the manuscript the reasoning behind doing the multivariate analyses remains fuzzy. (Is a quantitative distinction of morphotypes necessary if I already have got qualitative distinction criteria - for what reason?)

(4) The authors include the different types of dermal bones – skull-roofing bones, clavicles and interclavicles – and assume a correspondence between similar (?) ornamentation morphotypes I and II in skull bones and clavicles. However they do not test this assumed correspondence quantitatively (based on ornamentation characters/measures) nor with the help of associated remains/complete Metoposaurus specimens that include both, skull and pectoral girdle which would offer additional proof that skull and interclavicle ornamentation types actually correspond (belong to the same type I or type II individual).

The authors cite other studies by Teschner and Konietzko-Meier (2015), Konietzko-Meier and Klein (2013), Bodzioch and Kowal-Linka (2012), Bodzioch (2015) that show "dimorphism" in other bone characteristics, e.g. of femora and humeri, and they think that this kind of morphological variance is reflected by the signal they have found in dermal bones - but there is the similar problem as for other ornamented dermal bones that in case of isolated bones/ incomplete specimens no one can really tell which femora and humeri belong to which kind of clavicles.
-----
Validity of the findings: (5) While the idea of two separable morphotypes appears to be supported by the data (despite the small sample size, but see also methodological problems described above), the authors’ interpretation of these types as ecomorphotypes, i.e. caused by ecological differences, appears to be rather vague for several reasons
- vague definition of ontogenetic stages based on a study by Zalecka (2012) - better would be other criteria for individual age, such as body size proxies or histological features of the dermal bones (e.g. growth marks, degree of remodelling)
- vague idea that a certain type of polygonal ornamentation is indicative for adult specimens and more ridge-like patterns for juveniles - is there a sufficient ontogenetic series to prove that relationship for M. krasiejowensis?
- lacking analoga of ecomorphotypes with comparable distinct dermal bone ornamentations in other temnospondyl species (the authors have cited examples for ecomorphotypes in other species but not for ecology-based intraspecific variation in ornamentation patterns)
- lack of complete specimens that could prove that certain types of clavicles actually corresponds to morphotypes of other bones (skulls, humeri, femora...)
- lacking evidence that the clavicle morphotypes I and II actually come from different environments and were deposited together or other (e.g. isotopic) data that could prove distinct ecologies for the individuals to which the distinct clavicles types belonged.

Thus I would refrain from calling the described morphotypes "ecomorphotypes" and I would not consider the author's interpretation of these types as intraspecific variation due to different ecologies as yet well supported by the data at hand. Arguably the discussion and conclusion should reflect somewhat better the remaining uncertainty about the meaning of described morphotypes.
-----
Additional comments: (6) Diagrams: Better leave out regression functions completely - never plot them for mixed samples. They make only sense for presumably homogeneous subgroups.

(7) The subheadings "Diagnosis: clavicles", "Remarks on [other?] dermal bones" , "Possible solutions"  sound strange/awkward - can't you find better ones? "Ornamentation and lifestyle" is not far away from "Ornament function" in terms of content, because function and lifestyle are closely related - why not discussing these points in one concise chapter of the Discussion section to avoid redundancy/overlap?

(8) I added a number comments to the manuscript pdf - suggestions for improvement and sometimes questions about points that remained unclear.

The points discussed above are in accordance with a major revision.

Sincerely yours

Michael Buchwitz, 14th December 2017


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: ORNAMENTATION OF DERMAL BONES OF METOPOSAURUS KRASIEJOWENSIS AND ITS ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is much improved over the previous version. Particularly important is that the authors have focused on one of the possible causes of the bimodality in dermal bone ornamentation among the Krasiejow metoposaurs. Nevertheless, their argument that the cause is ecological still remains a bit weak, and could be bolstered with some discussion of the taphonomy of the actual metoposaur fossils. I attach an article we published on metoposaur bonebed taphonomy for some ideas in this regard.

Thus, I think the manuscript needs minor to moderate revision to be published.

Spencer G. Lucas

My edits of grammar are on the attached pdf, and comments/suggestions are keyed to numbers on the pdf:

1.	You should say that among all these possibilities, ecological variation is most plausible.
2.	This specimen should be illustrated and discussed a bit more. If it is not Metoposaurus, then it should be identified.
3.	What does “ground” mean? Please clarify.
4.	We need to know something more about the taphonomy of the bonebed. Are the two dermal bone morphs obviously from two taphonomically different populations? What evidence of transport is there—alignment, abrasion, etc? See the Lucas et al. 2010 PPP analysis of a Triassic metoposaur bonebed for some ideas about metoposaur taphonomy. A discussion of this would either provide support for the ecological separation idea or not. Indeed, the idea that metopo skulls came from Variscan highlands seems difficult to accept—those skulls are too fragile to travel many kilometers in a  river and remain intact.
5.	What evidence is there to support this?
6.	I don’t follow this? How does biting prey = semi-aquatic lifestyle? Don’t aquatic predators bite their prey?
7.	What is “Gilgai relief?”
Experimental design: See above
Validity of the findings: See above
Additional comments: See above


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

Input:
Title: ORNAMENTATION OF DERMAL BONES OF METOPOSAURUS KRASIEJOWENSIS AND ITS ECOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In comparison to the earlier submitted version of this manuscript by Antczak & Biodzioch, the presentation of measurement data has improved; separate supplemental files - e.g. xls sheet files or tab-stop-separated data in txt files - would be better, though.

I still think that at least a photographic depiction of all included specimens whose ornamentations have been measured would greatly support the manuscript as a whole (e.g as figure or supplemental figure).
-----
Experimental design: The authors have chosen to consider the morphotypes as given - based on qualitative morphological criteria/certain diagnostic features - and use additional (morphometric) measures based on ornamentation patterns in order to test whether the observed differences can be defined quantitatively.

There is the risk of circularity (circular reasoning) if the quantitative criteria used for statistic tests merely reflect the qualitative criteria for the prior distinction of groups. The authors should consider this point by using only one or a few (qualitative) morphological criteria for the definition of morphotypes before the quantitative analysis which then should only involve (quantitative) criteria not already used in the definition of the two types.

The authors' way of reasoning and the newly included significance tests (whether specimens of type I and II come from the same or distinct statistic population(s), Table 5) should be more adequately described in the Methods section.

Concerning the authors' question about MANOVA: I think the only limiting factor might be the number of data points per group in relation to the number of groups that shall be distinguished - so it should be possible in this case.
-----
Validity of the findings: The presence of two morphotypes appears to be sufficiently supported by data. In accordance with earlier reviewer comments, the authors are now more modest/reluctant about the correspondence of clavicle morphotypes and "dimorphism" in other bones.

There is still the problem that the meaning of the two morphotypes (whether ecology is a decisive factor) is not yet well defined because there is
(a) no outgroup or other reference group (e.g. sufficient specimen sample of another temnospondyl species) on which the same kind of morphometric measurements of ornamentation patterns have been carried out,
(b) no clear assocation of clavicles to other bones of the same individual,
(c) no other additional (e.g. palaeoenvironmental, geochemical, histological) data.

Because such an independent line of evidence is lacking, I'm still not yet convinced by the interpretation of these morphotypes as ecomorphotypes - despite the longish argumentation in the Discussion chapter where the authors try to rule out other ways of interpretation.

I think (in accordance with PeerJ publishing policies) it would inappropriate to demand such additional/indepedent supporting evidence but Abstract, Discussion and Summary should arguably reflect the remaining uncertainty somewhat better.
-----
Additional comments: The naming of the subheadings has improved, is now reflecting the reasoning/stucture of this approach somewhat better.

Plots: I still think that the convex hulls should include all data points of the respective subgroup/morphotype - no matter the overlap between groups or completeness of the specimens (would be more honest). Otherwise better leave convex hulls out entirely. See my comment in the annotated pdf of the first review.

The ternary plot in Fig. 7 is a nice solution for such kind of compositional data.

The points of concern named above are in agreement with a moderate revision.

Best regards, Michael Buchwitz, 15th February 2018


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: RAPID MULTI-LOCUS SEQUENCE TYPING DIRECT FROM UNCORRECTED LONG READS USING KROCUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: Page & Keane present Krocus, a k-mer-based method for a rapid detection of Multilocus Sequence Types from long reads produced by Pacbio and Oxford Nanopore sequencing technologies. MLST is a standard technique in molecular biology used for classifying strains of a species into smaller groups, based on the observed alleles of a tuple of housekeeping genes. Being originally designed as a PCR-based technique, MLST remained widely popular even in the era of NGS. While several MLST callers exist for calling from assemblies or short read sequencing technologies, no program exists for long reads. The paper is thus highly relevant and Krocus is likely to find its use in practical applications.

Krocus uses a k-mer-based approach. It iterates over a stream of reads. For each read, it starts by filtering, looking for alleles that might have a match within a given read. Then the candidate alleles are compared to the read and shared k-mers identified. This is followed by a correction for sequencing errors. The reconstructed k-mers hits and read coverage are then used to update counters corresponding to the allele and reporting the identified alleles and the corresponding sequence type.

All steps of the program are well explained. According to my testing, Krocus is easy to use. Its source codes are available from Github, tested on Travis CI, released under the GNU GPL 3 license, and they are well documented and easy to read and understand. The Krocus Python package can be installed using PIP from Github. Detailed data about individual experiments are provided in an Excel spreadsheet, which contains accession numbers of the tested samples, true sequence types, predicted sequence types, and other information.
Validity of the findings: According to the authors, Krocus is highly accurate and sensitive (94% sensitivity, 97% specificity) and provides results within 90 seconds from the start of sequencing (average). To validate these characteristics, I performed several experiments with own data.

Unfortunately, despite extensive experimenting with the Krocus CLI parameters, I did not succeed in reproducing the presented characteristics. In particular, I tested Krocus with six isolates of Streptococcus Pneumoniae sequenced using Oxford Nanopore. In only one case the correct sequence type (ST) was reliable detected. Here is a summary of the individual cases:
1)	ST 62: Unsuccessful; oscillations between the correct and a novel ST
2)	ST 320: Unsuccessful; oscillations between an incorrect (9630) and a novel ST
3)	ST 37: Unsuccessful; unstable several stretches of novel STs detected (spi gene: spi(425), spi(13), spi(381), …)
4)	ST 320: Unsuccessful; stable, but an incorrect ST detected (9630)
5)	ST 3587: Unsuccessful; no ST detected
6)	ST 37: Successful; stable and a correct ST detected

The speed of detection (90s) couldn’t be reproduced too. In most of the experiments, the results were not stable and even after several hours of (simulated) sequencing – Krocus was still switching between different STs.
Additional comments: The source of the discrepancy between my results and the results from the paper is not fully clear to me. It might be consequence of a slightly limited robustness of the method and of the dependence on multiple hardcoded and user-specified parameters. These parameters seem to be calibrated for the high-quality NCTC data, and probably only to those species that are considered in the comparisons. This might not be so problematic if the failures were clearly indicated by Krocus. Unfortunately, even though the program provides a mechanism to indicate low confidence allele calls (using the star character), these warnings were not reliable (many false negatives).

I see two possible solutions. Either the paper can be modified so that it becomes clear under which assumptions Krocus is guaranteed to work (e.g., enumerated species + only PacBio + error rate lower than a certain threshold), or the method should be improved so that it can work for both ONP and PacBio in a general setting. It would also be nice if Krocus could clearly indicate failures (see Specific comments). I also suggest using simulated reads to evaluate the effect of sequencing errors on MLST calling and reliability of the method for all supported species.

Specific comments

•	The assumptions for the method to work should be well documented. Does Krocus work only with isolates, or it supports also metagenomes?  Is any prior cleaning of the reads needed or recommended for increasing the quality of the reported MLST calls? Is Krocus supposed to work with all the species that are listed in the output of “krocus_database_downloader -l”?
•	It is not clear to me how to decide whether the current result is final or not (when looking at the stream of intermediate outputs). Krocus is often oscillating between multiple sequence types, and it also tends to report a novel sequence type too often. There is no number in the output, which would help to distinguish between reliable and unreliable detections (an equivalent of mapping quality in read mapping). Could Krocus report some kind of confidence score?
•	Would it be possible to upload Krocus to Bioconda and PyPI?
•	It is not clear why certain sequencing experiments from NCTC 3000 are excluded from the comparison (l.121). These examples might help to explain why Krocus failed in my tests (e.g., whether this behavior is species-specific).
•	It would be nice to provide a simple figure illustrating the algorithm (the bins, etc.; l.70-103).
•	I would highly appreciate a Make/Snakemake pipeline for downloading the NCTC samples and re-runing the experiments.


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

Input:
Title: RAPID MULTI-LOCUS SEQUENCE TYPING DIRECT FROM UNCORRECTED LONG READS USING KROCUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This manuscript introduces Krokus, a software tool to infer MLST sequence types from un-assembled sequence data from sequence error-rich, long read sequence platforms such as PacBio or Oxford Nanopore. The authors explain the algorithm in detail, test its accuracy as compared to another WGS MLST tool. The paper is generally well written, the experiments are well designed, and the findings valid. While well written, the description of the algorithm would benefit from an additional figure laying out the individual steps of the algorithm.


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: RAPID MULTI-LOCUS SEQUENCE TYPING DIRECT FROM UNCORRECTED LONG READS USING KROCUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The writing is clear and unambiguous, correctly referenced, with good quality figures and tables and availability of code and data.
Experimental design: This paper describes a novel bioinformatics pipeline which is open source and well-documented.
Validity of the findings: No concerns on validity.
Additional comments: The authors describe a new bioinformatics tool and algorithm, Krocus, for identifying MLST profiles from single molecule reads generated from nanopore sequencing and PacBio.

MLST profiling remains an important tool in public health microbiology to give subtype designations to bacterial species.

The software is available as an open source package with good documentation.

The tool is fast to use and has good performance, except in a small percentage of cases, which is ascribed to sequencing error.

I was able to install the software easily on Linux and Mac, download a database, and test a nanopore FASTA file which rapidly gave me the correct ST. Congratulations!

The tool has a few limitations - it can only be used on isolate data (not metagenomes) and cannot be used to reconstruct novel alleles.

My comments are minor:

1. I would say you cannot really use MLST to rule an isolate into an outbreak, only to rule out. Finer grained SNP or cgMLST analysis is commonly used to infer whether isolates are from a point source. Does this method also work for cgMLST?

2. I actually have doubts that this method is definitively better/faster than an alignment-based approach. Have the authors simply attempted to map reads to a reference MLST database and count the top hits using a fast mapper like minimap2? I suspect this would give similar results to this approach (in reality, the approach used is not that dissimilar to accelerated alignment methods). I don’t think a comparison is necessary in this manuscript, so please remove references to this approach being a better method than alignment-based ones (or alteranatively do the comparison).

3. 145-145 I think what are referred to as Unicycler+nanopolish assemblies are a pipeline that use miniasm + Racon, followed by nanopolish. This should be clarified (and references cited). It may be useful to check results of TS-mlst on Canu+nanopolish assemblies as well.

4. PacBio, although a real-time sequencing instrument, does not currently provide read data in real-time for analysis. Instead a video is recorded for a fixed time, then basecalled and subsequently analysed. By contrast, nanopore reads are available for processing as each read finishes traversing the pore. The authors may wish to clarify these differences.


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: RAPID MULTI-LOCUS SEQUENCE TYPING DIRECT FROM UNCORRECTED LONG READS USING KROCUS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: All the comments were answered.
Experimental design: No particular comments
Validity of the findings: No particular comments
Additional comments: It would be nice if a new release of Krocus could be provided: the Github master has been significantly updated (e.g., the new output format added), but PyPI and Conda contain only the old release.


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: GENETIC INFLUENCES ON CREATIVITY: AN EXPLORATION OF CONVERGENT AND DIVERGENT THINKING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The present study showed a new evidence for the genetic basis on both the divergent and the convergent thinking of creativity. Moreover, the different genetic influences were found for the two components, providing possible different genetic mechanisms behind the two processes. The results are interesting and worth to be published. However, I have some concerns about the methodological and descriptive issues. Detailed comments are listed below.
Please explain in the introduction (and also the discussion) the distinction and relationship between the divergent and the convergent thinking.
Experimental design: 1) The information about data analysis was missing. A paragraph of" Data analysis " is needed to explain the methods and factors used in the statistics.
2) Considering that the raw data in the creativity tests was subjective coded, the way and criterion (e.g., interrater reliability) in data coding need to be clarified.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: 1) The gender difference has been found in creativity studies. Why not take the gender factor as a covariate?
2) Only the divergent thinking were related with the real-life creative achievement. How do you explain the absence of correlation between the convergent thinking and the CAQ?
3) It seems that personality traits were considered in the selection of SNPs. Have you tried to analyze the role of personality in the genetic influences on creativity?
4) It must be "Table 2 Related cognitive functions or capabilities of selected SNPs" rather than "Table 1"


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

Input:
Title: GENETIC INFLUENCES ON CREATIVITY: AN EXPLORATION OF CONVERGENT AND DIVERGENT THINKING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The present study has investigated the genetic basis of divergent and convergent thinking. The results imply the role of gene polymorphisms in the creativity. The article is well-organized and written clearly.
Several issues are listed below:
1. In Introduction, the reason why previous research mainly focused on diverge thinking could also be added.
2. The participants are chosen from  two universities. Please conduct chi-square tests to avoid any confounding here, or include this variable (participant source) in the MANOVA test. Moreover, did you check the prerequisite of MANOVA? Please provide the method of correction if the prerequisite is violated.
3. In the discussion part, please relate current results with earlier findings of previous “diverge thinking” studies.
4.In Figure 1, by placing the name of polymorphisms on the left side, it is easier to understand for the reader.


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: GENETIC INFLUENCES ON CREATIVITY: AN EXPLORATION OF CONVERGENT AND DIVERGENT THINKING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript studied the genetic basis for divergent and convergent thinking components of creativity. Relevant literatures have been sufficiently cited and introduced. Based on the literature review, the authors proposed a new approach by taking a cognition-based perspective. Compared to previous studies mostly focusing on one single cognitive functions, here 19 SNPs were selected by incorporating a larger variety of creativity related cognitions such as memory, intelligence, personality etc. Three SNPs out of the selected 19 SNPs were found to be associated with creativity. Overall, the manuscript is well written, the findings are novel and could be of general interest in the field of psychology.
Experimental design: In my understanding, the present research is within the aim and scope of PeerJ. The research question is well defined and the design and methods were properly chosen to answer the proposed question.

While the study design is quite simple and straightforward, more explanations on the following issues are necessary:
1. The studied 19 SNPs are selected based on the introduced studies in Introduction. What was the criterion for the SNP selection? Did these SNPs provide a complete overview of possible SNPs?
2. The linkage between RAT and convergent thinking need to be further explained, with proper references. The current statement is too arbitrary.
3. The data analysis plan (e.g. zscore, MANOVA, ANCOVA etc.) should be clearly introduced in Methods, before reporting the results.
4. While age and intelligence were controlled, gender needs to be controlled as well, as it has been reported in previous studies to be associated
Validity of the findings: The sample size is relatively small (although acceptable) in gene-related studies and the studied population only covered college students, this issue should be acknowledged in Discussion. For instance, there might be significant effects in the remaining non-significant SNPs, but could not be revealed given the present sample size and population coverage.
Additional comments: Given my comments above (especially the suggested revision in methods), I suggest major revision.


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

Input:
Title: GENETIC INFLUENCES ON CREATIVITY: AN EXPLORATION OF CONVERGENT AND DIVERGENT THINKING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is the second review of the manuscript by Zhang et al.  The current version of the manuscript is much clearer and makes the authors' points cleanly and convincingly.
Experimental design: The second version of the methods section is more clearly as well as the resutls.
Validity of the findings: The results are convincingly.
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: GENETIC INFLUENCES ON CREATIVITY: AN EXPLORATION OF CONVERGENT AND DIVERGENT THINKING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no commment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The study aimed to address an interesting question. Now sufficient background and further explanation is provided both in the introduction and discussion part. The analyses reported in the paper are of sufficient quality and the paper is also reasonably well-written.


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: GENETIC INFLUENCES ON CREATIVITY: AN EXPLORATION OF CONVERGENT AND DIVERGENT THINKING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: All my concerns have been properly addressed. I am satisfied with the revision. I recommend acceptance of this manuscript.