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 FIRST OBSERVATIONS OF ISCHNOCHITON (MOLLUSCA, POLYPLACOPHORA) MOVEMENT BEHAVIOUR, WITH COMPARISON BETWEEN HABITATS DIFFERING IN COMPLEXITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a well-written study showing basic movement patterns of a common intertidal chiton species and linking this to adult distribution.

Figure 1b is very blurry – do you have a better example?

Figure 2, 3 and 4 or their captions needs to specify sample (total number of boulders at each site for Fig 2, total number of chitons for Fig 3, total chitons measured for each metric in each substratum for Fig 4)
Experimental design: The experimental design is sound, with some careful considerations made by the authors (e.g. omitting data from chitons that interact with each other, inclusion of tortuosity of movement), but there are a few clarifications that should be made in the Methods as follows:

Clearly define substratum type categories and be consistent with terminology.  You mention cobbles in the Results, but the description of the study area doesn’t define them. Clearly state how many substratum categories, their names and definition. If cobbles are not included in these, then remove mention of them from other section.

Line 122: specify that this task was undertaken during the day.

How did you take photos at night? Presumably with a flash? How do you control for possible effects on chiton?
Validity of the findings: The findings are well-linked to general patterns of adult distribution, with appropriate and cited speculation as to reasons for the results.

Line 260-261: how does this fit with other intertidal species’ known preferences?
Additional comments: Abstract: Please mention where this study took place (intertidal, South Australia)

Abstract, line 32: Specify the different habitat types in parentheses

Abstract, line 43: Please use ‘adult dispersal’ here to avoid confusion with larval ecology. You clarify this well in the ms, but the abstract stands alone.

Throughout ms: commas needed to separate independent clauses (e.g. Line 57, line 62). No commas needed for dependent clauses (line 79)

Line 277: specify what these ‘novel methods’ are.


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 FIRST OBSERVATIONS OF ISCHNOCHITON (MOLLUSCA, POLYPLACOPHORA) MOVEMENT BEHAVIOUR, WITH COMPARISON BETWEEN HABITATS DIFFERING IN COMPLEXITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a concise and coherent manuscript that tells a reasonably simple story (based on only a few days of field sampling) but tells it well. It contains clearly articulated a priori hypotheses which are then adequately tested. As noted by the authors, there is not much published information on the ecology of underboulder chitons (though I am aware of some unpublished Masters theses on this topic), so there isn't much to directly compare their findings with. However, I did feel that a more in-depth consideration of the recorded movement patters of chitons from other habitats could have been included in the Discussion (see notes on the manuscript itself) .
Experimental design: There are 2 components to this study - the dispersion patterns of this chiton determined by overturning boulders/cobbles at 2 sites and counting the attached chitons underneath them; the movement patterns of chitons at one site recorded via time-lapse photography during night-time low tides. Both components have been adequately carried out, with appropriate collection of field data and statistical analyses of those data. The graphs and tables are well presented and clearly illustrate the main findings. There are a couple of minor queries on the ms itself, but no major improvements are required.
Validity of the findings: The data are robust, appropriately analysed and the conclusions generally sound. I did feel, however, that some commentary was required about possible movements of this species outside of the only situation that was investigated (ie night-time low tides) - what happens at high tide for example? There is not much speculation in the manuscript and when it occurs it is clearly identified as such. The authors quite rightly suggest that the technique they used has considerable merit for conducting further studies of movement/dispersion of cryptic species.
Additional comments: A simple yet illuminating study that provides important new information on a group of molluscs that has traditionally been hard to study. The material is worthy of publication.


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

Input:
Title: BROAD SPECTRUM PESTICIDE APPLICATION ALTERS NATURAL ENEMY COMMUNITIES AND MAY FACILITATE SECONDARY PEST OUTBREAKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is very readable, though too long.
Raw data is not shared. Don't know if this is mandatory.
Not an expert in terrestrial ecotoxicology, cannot comment on whether literature background is exhaustive.
Experimental design: Design largely sound but has shortcomings, see below
Validity of the findings: Discussion too long.
Additional comments: The paper describes the effects of two pesticide treatments on pest and beneficiary invertebrates over several seasons. The study design is largely sound, but see major comment below. The article is very readable, but pretty long given its contents.

Major comment
The data analysis seems flawed to me. The authors seem to treat the replicates within a block as independent. However, they are not and the block design does not help here. Generally, there are two replicates per treatment, thus inferential statistics seem misplaced to me. At least in aquatic mesocosm studies this would not work, and I don't see why sampling the same treatment strip multiple times would result in treatment replication.
Moreover, the sample size would be even smaller if factors such as the crop type or amount of pesticide applied would be included in the analysis (I don't suggest to do this, but the sample size is too small to draw general treatment conclusions based on statistical inference).

Minor comments
19 "community ecology" specify, what you examine
29f point out what is pest and beneficiary
35 add whitespace 36ha
60 and but
92 Begin sentence with capital letter
138 replace comma with .
187 should be "were"
189 how was the kriging done? Should also be kriged data
209 delete "studies"
235 what kind of null model?
257 suggest to move "in total" to beginning of sentence
218 suggest to rephrase "this contrasts to"
308 whitespace missing (pest community)
391 replace methodologies with methods
395 remove "()"
406 species (spelling)
Figure 1 you could put the scale directly beside the figure so as to clarify that each width of treatment is 78 m
Figure 4 Spelling should be "shows" instead "dhows"
Figure 5b control could be included in plot


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: BROAD SPECTRUM PESTICIDE APPLICATION ALTERS NATURAL ENEMY COMMUNITIES AND MAY FACILITATE SECONDARY PEST OUTBREAKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: This study represents an impressive amount of sampling and sorting to address a question of great interest and which requires considerable commitment to address with field studies. Represents an impressive attempt on the part of the authors to identify the factors affecting pest and natural enemy abundances in a field study.

It would be useful to be provided with information as to relative abundances of taxa considered eg the importance of the observed a significant impact on predatory beetles (carabids and staphylinids) is related to their abundance.
See also Ll310 Ff clearly abundance of these taxa is relevant to effect size also L315 with reference to predatory bugs and wasps. This information could be inserted to Table 2.

The authors indicate they aim to sample ground dwelling invertebrates but include several beneficials (eg lacewings, ladybirds, syphids) and even pests (eg aphids) for which this is a suboptimal sampling method. Some mention of this should be made.

Include consideration of the role of increased rainfall and change of crop to canola in increase in slug abundance observed. Is there potential for increased slug abundance in the final sampling be influenced by the increased rainfall in that season?

Natural enemy and beneficial are used interchangeably throughout ms.  Greater consistency should be aimed at especially in referring to results where tables and figs use beneficial rather than natural enemy.

L84 delete c
L85 suggests
L135-137  check font

Ll138-139 Meaning unclear-“Seed treatments and fungicides were not applied during this long term experiment, only herbicides to limit confounding non target impacts from other pesticides”. Re write to clarify

L149 L why was double application of chlorpyrifos expected to increase impact on beneficials?  Reference or justification required

Ll152-153 repeat of LL143-144. Please delete

L173 add information clarifying the outcome of sorting and grouping eg resulting in 13 taxa (variously order, family, species) classified as  “beneficials” and 11 taxa of “pests” (see Table 2 for detail). And use consistent term in table “taxa” rather than groups

L198 species richness-all taxa? Both “pest” and “beneficial”

In results need to list the taxa as included in analyses

Table 2 “Beneficial and pest communities and groups defined for this study”

These are the individual Taxa referred to in the text (L) I presume. This needs to be made clear and the same terminology used. Change caption to read” taxa” rather than “groups” and make clear these are the discrete units used in analysis

Caption Table 2 insert space indicates no available information

Results 115 different species or taxa collected but this is reduced to about 30 listed in Table 2. Needs  more information n methods eg 6 species included in  “carabid beetles” or similar
L157 add placed into X taxa for analysis
L281 earthmites (figure 3) abundance looks unaffected by treatment except for towards end of treatment? And earwigs higher abundance fr earlier sampling dates?
Insert to caption for figure 2 “..species richness insert X taxa of beneficials and pests

The relevance of species richness of all taxa collected to assessing treatment impacts need to be more clearly set out. Would like to see this analysis for “beneficials and “pests” separately. Is increased species richness desirable if it is caused by increased pest species or taxa?

Clarification needed-in Fig 3 it appears carabid abundance declines Jan 2006-June 2006 but higher rate of chlorpyrifos was applied June 21st 2006-is this correct?
L308 pest community
L309 June 2005 and September 2005 sampling but Table 3 says July 2005 and October 2005
L312 insert date of increased chlorpyrifos referred to in text to Table 3
L315staphylinids marginally affected March 2006-is this correct?
L330 and elsewhere X2 to 2 DP and P
L395 insert ref
L377 please check intent of Thomson and Hoffmann 2006 which is actually a field study not “laboratory bioassays”
L564 insert para

Figure 2 and other figures labels delete “none” and replace with “control” for consistency
Insert “X taxa of beneficials and pests” following species richness
Figure 3 caption insert units for abundance in text
Table 1 should planting dates read 2005 etc?

Table 3 insert to caption for the beneficial and pest communities

Figure 4 caption L1 and L4 shows not dhows
Label “beneficial community” not” natural enemy community” for consistency


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: BROAD SPECTRUM PESTICIDE APPLICATION ALTERS NATURAL ENEMY COMMUNITIES AND MAY FACILITATE SECONDARY PEST OUTBREAKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: xxx
Experimental design: xxx
Validity of the findings: xxx
Additional comments: The authors have successfully improved the manuscript. Their answer to my comment on the data analysis was also convincing, but I was disappointed that they did not add at least 2-3 sentences in the manuscript like: " We are aware of xxx and therefore we conducted preliminary analyses.  Theses showed that ..."

In addition a couple of minor issues should be fixed before publication:

Line numbers refer to document with tracked changes
103 add comma after chemicals
164/165 can you provide any information what these default settings are?
185 should be: the effects of pesticides
191 Pascual not in reference list - check all references carefully (and is it really Pascual or Pascoal?)
283 should be „though“ not „thought“
360 should be: „can interact“
381 should be „that reported that“ ?
406 should probably be „Stäubli“
411-413 statement of sentence is convoluted


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: BROAD SPECTRUM PESTICIDE APPLICATION ALTERS NATURAL ENEMY COMMUNITIES AND MAY FACILITATE SECONDARY PEST OUTBREAKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, excellent English throughout with literature providing sufficient background and context
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant and meaningful
Validity of the findings: Data is robust statistically sound; conclusion well stated and linked to original research question
Additional comments: The authors have prepared an exemplary response to reviewer comments and the revised manuscript reflects this attention to detail


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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GENETIC POLYMORPHISMS OF THE IL28B GENE AND LEUKOMONOCYTE IN CHINESE HEPATITIS B VIRUS-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Dear Authors, I have read with great interest Your manuscript entitled “Association between genetic polymorphisms of the IL28B gene and leukomonocyte in Chinese hepatitis B virus-infected persons”. The study showed the interesting association between IL28B polymorphisms and HBV infection and biochemical characteristics of HBV-infected individuals with different serological expressions.
The influence of host-related genetic variability on HBV infection, HBV surface antigen seroclearance and differences in response rates to therapy in CHB patients is not well understood. Unlike many studies confirming that SNPs in the interleukin 28B (IL28B) gene play a primary role in IFN-based treatment outcomes in patients with chronic hepatitis C, the association between IL28B SNPs and the clinical course and serologic profiles of  acute and chronic hepatitis B has been a subject of very few studies. Interestingly, the investigation was carried out within Chinese HBV-infected population  and will be helpful for further research in this field among specific subpopulation.
It is a study with relatively large amount of cases with chronic infected phase and patients undergoing convalescence but small for patients  at acute infected phase to final conclusions.  Considering the above, the authors skilfully and carefully draw conclusions, point out the need for further research.
However, I have a few comments:
1. Please precise the criteria for patients undergoing convalescence in section "Subgrouping of HBV-infected persons".
2. Create a legend for the results in Table 3 (p-value, OR, 95%CI)
3. It is very interesting to compare patients who developed chronic HBV infection with patients who have undergone self-treatment – Please show the results of the comparison between the second and the third group in table 3.
4. Authors identified the relationship between IL28B genotypes and biochemical parameters, but these analyzes were performed within the entire group of patients enrolled in the study. These patients are in various phases of HBV infection (acute, chronic and convalescence) and may therefore have different biochemical parameters. Please explain why not have done these analyzes.
Please provide biochemical results in three patient groups. If no significant differences between these three groups are found in terms of biochemical parameters then table 4 may remain. On the other hand, if the patient groups differ significantly in biochemical parameters, then additionally, please analyze the relationship between IL28B and biochemical parameters for each group separately for IL28B dominant models (body article or supplemental).


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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GENETIC POLYMORPHISMS OF THE IL28B GENE AND LEUKOMONOCYTE IN CHINESE HEPATITIS B VIRUS-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Background on IL28B polymorphisms is all right.

Background on the role of leukomonocyte (LYM) levels in HBV patients is lacking.

There are some grammar mistakes that should be revised.
Experimental design: The design is ok as well as the technical standard.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid, however in my opinion the interpretation of the results are not completely right.
Additional comments: The authors evaluated the role of the IL28B gene in HBV-infected individuals in China. They screened genotypes of three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, rs12979860, rs8099917, and rs12980275) in HBV infected persons and general controls by using SnapShot and sequencing. The results showed no significant differences in genotypes and alleles between the HBV infected persons and controls. Haplotype frequency was also similar between the HBV infected patients and controls. On the other hand genotype GT (P = 0.033) and allele G (P = 0.038) of rs8099917 showed statistically higher frequency in patients with acute hepatitis than compared to HBV patients undergoing convalescence. They also found that leukomonocyte (LYM) levels were associated with SNPs in the IL28B gene. In addition, the LYM levels were lower in the HBV-infected persons with genotype CC of rs12979860 and AA of rs12980275 than in the patients with other genotypes of these two SNPs. They concluded that genetic polymorphisms of the IL28B gene might be associated with the
pathogenesis or treatment effect of HBV infection.

Grammar has some errors that should be revised.
I do not think the term “popular disease” should be used. Instead, the authors should say “important disease” or “relevant disease”.
The abstract should specify the studied population (acute hepatitis B, chronic HBV and convalescence).
Major issues
 I do not agree that differences in leukomonocyte (LYM) levels are striking results. If so, the authors should have reported the background on the issue. I do not see relevance on this finding.
Conclusions “genetic polymorphisms of the IL28B gene might be associated with the pathogenesis or treatment effect of HBV infection” are not supported by the 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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GENETIC POLYMORPHISMS OF THE IL28B GENE AND LEUKOMONOCYTE IN CHINESE HEPATITIS B VIRUS-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: English language of the manuscript is very poor, starting from the abstract, with terms and expressions that are not correct and sometimes totally wrong (i.e. Abstract background:” Hepatitis B infection is the most popular hepatic disease in China”. Most popular ”??? This is an expression used for other issues). My suggestion is to have a native English speaker perform a deep correction of the text.
The background is too superficial. The previous works are cited without a clear explanation of their findings and main messages: i.e. “However, a genome-wide association  study (GWAS) among Asians found that this gene is not correlated with HBV (Kamatani Y. et al. 52 2009; Hu Z. et al. 2013).”: correlated to what? Viral clearance? Treatment outcome? HCC risk? Faster or slower evolution of progressive liver damage? Please explain. Also: “Recently, genetic variations of the IL28B gene have been identified to be associated with HCV infection, viral clearance, and response to therapy” : the first papers on this issue have been published in 2009… they are not recent.
Then further, in the abstract: “ However, the single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) or the  haplotypes constructed by SNPs in the IL28B gene can influence the HBV infection, HBV surface antigen sero-clearance, or treatment of HBV-infected persons (Seto W. K. et al. 2013; Domagalski K. et al. 2014).” This appears in contrast with the sentence above, but no explanation was given.
Then, further in the background: “The present  study investigated whether SNPs in the IL28B gene influence the HBV infection and biochemical characteristics of HBV-infected individuals with different serological expressions in Yunnan, China.” Reading the manuscript it is hard to understand which are the biochemical characteristics the authors are referring to. The authors reported some data about serological HBV parameters in the supplementary materials (the files are named “supplementary”, please change), but this is clearly not enough for a well designed study related to a hepatotropic virus. What about the other liver-related parameters (ALT, AST, bilirubin, albumin etc…)? My suggestion is to add a table with all the patient features, even if the same subjects have been analyzed in a previous study.
In summary, intro & background are to superficial and the literature could be better explained to understand the novelty coming from this study. Raw data are supplied but they are not enough to perform a complete and solid analysis (all the main liver parameters are completely missing). A table reporting all the patients features is mandatory.
Experimental design: The aim of the study is not completely clear as already stated. Methods are not  described with sufficient detail & information; usually, even if the methods are described in a previous paper, a brief explanation of the techniques could be helpful, at least to understand the type of approach. Here this description is completely missing. Please, add more information about patients and methods and try to collect more data about the patients to make a exhaustive  and maybe find some association with other liver/disease related parameters.
Validity of the findings: Although the results could raise some interest the impact and the novelty of this study, in the present version, are not sufficient . I suggest to implement the data related to patients and also perform new analyses on them. This could make the paper suitable for publication.
Additional comments: The paper needs a deep revision and many changes are needed:
-English language editing is mandatory;
- making the aim of the study clearer is also necessary;
- more laboratory and clinical data of the studied patients could open the way to more interesting analyses (multivariate analysis);
- Background should be more detailed and clearer to easily understand the novelty of this research;

Some concepts should be corrected and expressed in a more scientific way:
 “HBV-infected persons (persons it is a very unusual word, please change) were also devoid of any liver disease”. It is very strange that no one patient had liver damage since the cohort is pretty wide. How did the authors assessed the liver damage?
also:” Although no consistent result is obtained in different populations, HBV infection is reportedly associated with the IL28B gene “ how can an infectious disease be related to some particular host genotype? Maybe the pathogen clearance or the higher chance to be successfully treated could be related to a particular genetic pattern. The contagion is completely independent by the host genetics.
“Subgrouping of HBV-infected persons” paragraph:
“Group 3 comprised HBV-infected persons undergoing convalescence (N = 262).” What do the authors mean with the term “convalescence”?

My suggestion is to provide all the missing infos and to make all the suggested changes in order to improve 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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GENETIC POLYMORPHISMS OF THE IL28B GENE AND LEUKOMONOCYTE IN CHINESE HEPATITIS B VIRUS-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Background on IL28B polymorphisms and the role of leukomonocyte (LYM) levels in HBV patients is all right.
The manuscript is at great length, well written, seems accurate and well organized and the abstract represent the content of the paper. The authors clearly presented any doubts concerning the investigation conducted by them. The manuscript is discusses the reported findings in the context of the present knowledge - literature review is adequate.
Experimental design: The aim of the study is clear. Methods are described with sufficient details.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid. The paper makes original contribution and it is clinically exhaustive. There are some limitations regarding the small size of some subgroups; However, as the authors mentioned in the review division of HBV-infected individuals into three subgroups to analyze the biochemical characteristics, but no statistical difference was identified. The results of these analyzes should be included in the form of a table to the supplement. This could make the paper suitable for publication.
Additional comments: The study showed the interesting association between IL28B polymorphisms and HBV infection and biochemical characteristics of HBV-infected individuals with different serological expressions.
The influence of host-related genetic variability on HBV infection, HBV surface antigen seroclearance and differences in response rates to therapy in CHB patients is not well understood. Unlike many studies confirming that SNPs in the interleukin 28B (IL28B) gene play a primary role in IFN-based treatment outcomes in patients with chronic hepatitis C, the association between IL28B SNPs and the clinical course and serologic profiles of acute and chronic hepatitis B has been a subject of very few studies. Interestingly, the investigation was carried out within Chinese HBV-infected population and will be helpful for further research in this field among specific subpopulation.
It is a study with relatively large amount of cases with chronic infected phase and patients undergoing convalescence but small for patients at acute infected phase to final conclusions. Considering the above, the authors skilfully and carefully draw conclusions, point out the need for further research.
I have no comments.


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

Input:
Title: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GENETIC POLYMORPHISMS OF THE IL28B GENE AND LEUKOMONOCYTE IN CHINESE HEPATITIS B VIRUS-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article meets the required standards.
Experimental design: The article meets the required standards.
Validity of the findings: The article meets the required standards.
Additional comments: The authors have made the required changes.


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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GENETIC POLYMORPHISMS OF THE IL28B GENE AND LEUKOMONOCYTE IN CHINESE HEPATITIS B VIRUS-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I think the authors' replies to the reviewer's questions are satisfying; the authors made the required changes in the text. There are still some minor typing mistakes to correct ("Untile" instead of until... etc.).
Experimental design: The authors made the required changes
Validity of the findings: See the review of the first version
Additional comments: Please, have the minor typing mistakes corrected before to resubmit the final version of the paper.


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

Input:
Title: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GENETIC POLYMORPHISMS OF THE IL28B GENE AND LEUKOMONOCYTE IN CHINESE HEPATITIS B VIRUS-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article meets the required standards.
Experimental design: The article meets the required standards.
Validity of the findings: The article meets the required standards.
Additional comments: The authors have made the required changes.


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: ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GENETIC POLYMORPHISMS OF THE IL28B GENE AND LEUKOMONOCYTE IN CHINESE HEPATITIS B VIRUS-INFECTED INDIVIDUALS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No new comments regarding the current revised version.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors fixed the minor mistakes present in the previous version. I think the manuscript is now suitable for publication.


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

Input:
Title: UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN THE SENIOR LEVELS OF BRAZILIAN SCIENCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting submission that highlights the gender imbalance in representation of women in science in Brazil.
Minor suggestions include avoiding the use of "hard" as a descriptor of disciplines or sub-disciplines of science.  Hard versus soft science?  Hard versus easy science?  There are some typos or corrections not incorporated (line 322-323).
Discussion could be expanded and strengthened to relate loss or exclusion of women from "higher" levels of science (but not humanities) to cultural context. Institutional, federal, local policies that support women, parents, minorities etc.   Parental leave policies for instance, which differ significantly between European countries and the US leading to different stressors on women at specific stages in their scientific careers - what is the situation in Brazil?  Why is the impact felt more acutely in science?.  Are there recommendations that would come out of this study (along the lines of an Athena Swan or SAGE Pilot type of program for instance).  The paragraph starting at 312 acknowledges some attempts at systemic change but there appears to be little effect or impact.  Can the work presented here inform and guide policy-making?  If so, how?
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: Data are provided and made available as per journal instructions

I would encourage the authors to be more speculative about the underlying mechanisms that lead to their observation (making it clear they are speculating as per the journal instructions).  And looking to their data and findings for any potential policy recommendations (what would they be?  who would be responsible?)
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: UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN THE SENIOR LEVELS OF BRAZILIAN SCIENCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: THIS IS MY FULL REVIEW OF THE PAPER

-----------------------------
This paper presents a simple summary of gender imbalance in Brazilian science.  It is not an experimental study, but rather summarises available data.  If this is a reasonable topic for PeerJ, then I provide some comments to improve the paper:

Abstract - please remove or spell out acronyms (PQ, CNPq).  What is meant by 'Exact Sciences' - is that mathematics?  It is not a term I have come across.

Intro

I imagine the majority of readers, like me, have no familiarity with the Brazilian funding system.  It would be helpful to have clearer description of the categories and the grants that can be applied for.  When I first read line 87, I thought these categories were the scores applicants were given for their grant, not their career stage.  It was also only later that I worked out how the level 1A/1B/1C/1D categories relates to career stage, and the level of funding.  And it is not stated how this relates to doctoral or postdoctoral scholarships.  It would help to set this out explicitly (maybe in a table) at an early point in the introduction.

It seems that the 1A/1B etc categories depend on years post PhD - does this calculation take into account career breaks / maternity leave etc?  can the authors comment on how this might influence the gender distribution?

p131 - what does the 58% mean?  Is this 58% female or 58% of the sample are category 2?  the latter does not seem very relevant here.

p5 - why is this analysis divided into these particular subfields?  are these categories used by the CNPq?

p6 - as far as I can tell, PeerJ does not require a 'methods at the end' format, so I strongly advise putting the methods section betwen the intro and results - it makes the paper much more coherent and easier to read.

p6 = what are the standardised residuals?  how are these calculated?

p7 - the authors say there are more women than expected in some fields and less in others.  but this seems to be based on the overall proportion of 25% women.  Presumably, if the default expectation were 50% women, then all the subfields would be less than expected?  It would be worth spelling out what the expected values mean here, so readers can make sense of the deviation from expectd.

p9 - is the analysis of level of funding confounded with career stage?  It wasn't quite clear if only researchers at some career stages could apply for some funding levels, but if that is the case, then this analysis might be redundant.

Discussion

Reviewing the studies of Nosek & Moss-Racusina et al feels a bit out of place here - these are very different studies and don't really fit with the flow of this paper.  It would be better to consider these studies in relation to things that could be done to reduce the gender imbalance.

It might be worth adding a limitations section - in particular, the present data doesn't show if lower numbers of women with grants are because fewer women apply, or because those who do apply are less likely to be funded.  Without data on the gender balance in applications, it is impossible to determine this, but it is a key factor for developing effective solutions to gender imbalance.

It could also be worth discussing what kind of research could be done in future to better understand & reduce gender imbalances in science.

Tables 1-4

Why do the % columns sum to 100% when you read downwards?  surely it would be much more helpful if they summed to 100% along the rows so it is easy to see the % women in each category?

Fig 2B seems redundant as it is just the opposite of Fig2A.

Minor grammatical issues

line 51 - "Although some progress HAS BEEN MADE, ..."

line 58-61 - rewrite this sentence

line 322-323 - rephrase
Experimental design: this is not an experimental paper so I leave it to the editor to determine if it is in scope.  the analysis could be described better.
Validity of the findings: The findings seem reasonable.
Additional comments: no further 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: UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN THE SENIOR LEVELS OF BRAZILIAN SCIENCE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The language has been improved where necessary and additional supporting information included as recommended by the reviewers.  The article is professional and self-contained as per requirements of the journal.
Experimental design: Rigorous as far as I can assess.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The manuscript has benefited from very useful feedback from the reviewers and is strengthened.  It is a useful addition to the overall field.


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

Input:
Title: UNDERREPRESENTATION OF WOMEN IN THE SENIOR LEVELS OF BRAZILIAN SCIENCE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The paper is much improved and I have just a couple of minor comments.

First, I still find the terminology confusing in places.  In particular, why do you suggest that STEM is the same as 'Exact Sciences'.  STEM is a term that applies to ALL science & technology (including life sciences etc).  It would be more helpful to introduce the 3 domains distinguished in Brazil (Physical & exact sciences: ETEC; Life Sciences VC and Humanities and Applied Social Sciences (HASS) and then stick to those three acronyms throughout.  there is no need to try to re-define STEM to mean just some sciences.

Second, I recommend caution in the sections on cognitive differences between men and women.  The phrase 'cognitive differences between men and women are quite small' implies that there are still differences, when in fact many studies suggest zero difference.  It is important to make this clear.


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: THREE-DIMENSIONAL VARIATIONS IN THE LOWER LIMB CAUSED BY THE WINDLASS MECHANISM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This article meet the standards of the journal

However, is necessary to check some expressions in English
Experimental design: 1. It would be necessary to indicate the system of measurement of the anthropometric measurements (height, weight)

2. It would be helpful to indicate what of image was used to calculate the STJ with the Autocad system

3. Please, tell us something about the results of the test test of wilcoxon for the test with the independent sensors

4. What happened with the test in which the sensors were related ?
Validity of the findings: I think that the findings are accurate, valid and very helpful for the scientific community
Additional comments: This is a very good research and paper, I think it could be very cited in the podiatric medical community


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: THREE-DIMENSIONAL VARIATIONS IN THE LOWER LIMB CAUSED BY THE WINDLASS MECHANISM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In general, edit for word tense and word choice. A native English spoken should review the whole paper for clarity before publication.

The manuscript is full of grammar and spelling mistakes that should be corrected.
Experimental design: There are major issues regarding design reporting in the manuscritp. Please, see the general comments for authors section.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated.
Additional comments: The paper is quite interesting but needs some modifications in order to be published. So, Some mayor issues and a few minor ones have to be addressed:

MAJOR

The major point of the paper is that the Materials and Methods are not clearly described in the paper which the manuscript not very understandable. This should be corrected before publication.

1.	Kinematic description should be more clearly stated in the manuscript. The description of kinematics is usually quite complex and in this case needs a more detailed description in this paper. The starting point were the measurements were taken in the Bioval system should be clearly stated. You should define which was the zero position from the measurements taken. Did the system take a reference position from the relaxing standing position of the patient? Or did the system take the reference position from other choice?. For example: you say that metatarsophalangeal joint dorsiflexion was 8.83º with dependent sensors. Which was the reference position: standing position or 0º position?. The same can be applied to the all variables.
At the same time, from the tables, it seems that variables measured were extension of 1st MTP joint, plantarflexion of 1st metatarsal, prono-supination of first metatarsal, shank rotation, femur rotation and STJ. It should de define how this variables were measured with the Bioval system. Please, specify what STJ means and how was measured.
2.	In the manuscript there is a lack of explanation of the variables measured and compared. The authors used a significance test but we do not know which variables were compared. In lines 152-153, authors stated “to determine whether statistical significance was attained we used the Wilcoxon test for two related samples and to evaluate the correlation between variables Spearman’s Rho test was used.” However, it is not known what comparisons did the authors. You used a Wilcoxon rank sum test but
you need to specify what exact variables did you compare and why and, also, this should match with the objectives of the study stated in the introduction. Lines 165 -168, please specify the values. Without this information, the results section is not understandable.
3.	Why do you use the dependent sensors with the 45º wedge and the independent sensors with the maximum extension? From reading the manuscript it is not clear why you chose that methodology. If there is a reason for that, it should be clearly stated in the manuscript. Which is the difference between dependent and independent sensors?
4.	Subtalar Joint Axis Location technique is highly subjective and you should state which investigator/investigators performed the test along with other information such us years of experience. Furthermore, How do you define normal? There is no clear agreement regarding what can be defined as a normal STJ axis using this test. I would recommend to state what would be considered abnormal and used it as a exclusion criteria.

MINOR:

In general, edit for word tense and word choice. A native English spoken should review the whole paper for clarity before publication.

ABSTRACT:
The methods section of the abstract should be more clearly define. It it not possible to have an understanding of the results of this interesting paper if you do not specify the method section better.

INTRODUCTION:
Regarding the introduction, authors give a huge explanation of the windlass mechanism. That description is so large and for easy reading I would recommend to shorten it. Furthermore, from the introduction I am not sure what gap(s) in the literature you hope this study can address. Please briefly tell the reader this before you declare a study purpose.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Is it the statement in 106 right? (Oviedo Agreement and the Declaration of Helsinki? (Sure is Oviedo?)

In the exclusión criteria you stated, “inability to understand instructions related to the study”. As participants of the study were students from your university it seems hard to believe this exclusion criteria, please, modify it.

I recommend to change “variables measurement” instead of the “Methodology” subheading in the Materials and Methods section.

In order for reproducibility of the study you should say which investigator or investigators did the measurements. Was just one or more than one? These aspects should be clearly stated in the test so anyone can reply the study.

As Bioval system is not widely used or known, I would recommend a brief (1 or 2 sentences) description of the system.

I would recommend to add a subheading “Statistical Methods” in line 144.

Line 147, you stated “pronosupination of the first metatarsal”. I would recommend to clarify this concept as considerable confusion still exists regarding axis of movement and movement of first meatatarsal-ray in the literature.

It is recommended to say “Wilcoxon Rank sum test” instead of just “wilcoxon”

DISCUSSION

The discussion is interesting and well developed. There are several studies that that have also found less than 60º of 1st MTP dorsiflexion for normal walking in normal subjects. AS a suggestion I would recommend the authors to use these studies in the discussion.


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

Input:
Title: THREE-DIMENSIONAL VARIATIONS IN THE LOWER LIMB CAUSED BY THE WINDLASS MECHANISM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I have a quite a few concerns with this study.
- The background work needs to be thorough and talk about what has already been done and what information is lacking with proper references.
- The author needs to focus on what's novel about this study and the significance of it.
- The methods described are not clear and need to be more detailed.
- Last but not the least, the language used throughout the paper is very hard to understand. The manuscript should be reviewed by an English language expert before any further consideration.
Experimental design: The experimental design is not clear and needs to be more detailed.
Validity of the findings: It is difficult to comment on the validity since the design of the study is not clear and the language used is ordinary.
Additional comments: I have a quite a few concerns with this study.
- The background work needs to be thorough and talk about what has already been done and what information is lacking with proper references.
- The author needs to focus on what's novel about this study and the significance of it.
- The methods described are not clear and need to be more detailed.
- Last but not the least, the language used throughout the paper is very hard to understand. The manuscript should be reviewed by an English language expert before any further consideration.

Thank you for submitting your work.


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

Input:
Title: THREE-DIMENSIONAL VARIATIONS IN THE LOWER LIMB CAUSED BY THE WINDLASS MECHANISM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear an unambiguous, professional
Experimental design: Original
Validity of the findings: OK
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: INFORMATION FROM DYNAMIC LENGTH CHANGES IMPROVES RELIABILITY OF STATIC ULTRASOUND FASCICLE LENGTH MEASUREMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In general, the description of the protocol is difficult to follow. For example, how can five subjects times two legs time three raters equal 56 sets of images (L200)? Please consider including a sketch summarising the protocol or use a more streamlined description.
Experimental design: See general comments
Validity of the findings: See general comments
Additional comments: The present article compared different strategies to digitise muscle fascicle length from ultrasound images. The main findings are that informed digitisation (via analysis of preceding or consecutive frames) yielded more reliable results. The results also show that estimating changes in fascicle length in a series of images is more reliable than the assessment of single images when considering inter-rater differences.
The manuscript is globally well written and the study is interesting to the increasing number of scientists measuring fascicle length from ultrasound images. The conclusions are consistent with motor control theories highlighting the importance of optic flow in visuomotor tasks. My main question would be regarding the execution of the analysis and, by extension, the possibility of a missing experimental condition: In the sequence conditions, were the raters instructed to refrain from displaying the preceding images, playing the sequence back and forth? This strategy would be different than the strict, direct, digitisation of each image without playback, providing the rater with an optic flow, instead of discrete cues. In relation to this, it would have been interesting to propose another DIT condition, in which the frame of interest would have been in the middle of a sequence.

Minor comments:

Why taking 5 subjects out of 28?

The increased fascicle tension induced by maximal dorsiflexion considerably improves the echo and contrast from these structures. This aspect should be included in the factors making fascicle segmentation easier in these images (i.e. it is not the sole effect of fascicle orientation).


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: INFORMATION FROM DYNAMIC LENGTH CHANGES IMPROVES RELIABILITY OF STATIC ULTRASOUND FASCICLE LENGTH MEASUREMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The language is clear throughout the whole manuscript. References provided are appropriate and sufficient. The state of the figure is more than acceptable (although I will suggest to insert a new figure to better explain the methodology used).
Experimental design: The experimental design is clear but sometimes it requires a lot of focus by the reader to actually visualise how the study was conducted. I suggest the authors to provide a schematic representation of the scan acquisition between the two groups.
The rest of the method section is good.
Please specify the probe length and how the operator were sure that the probe was place on fascicle plane (I'm sure it was, just better specify in the methods you actually took care of this, especially during the passive movement).
Validity of the findings: The novelty of findings is appreciated, especially for a measure that we know being subjected to a lot of variability between many operators and also investigations. I have just a couple of points of discussion.

1- This was conducted  on GM muscle, a muscle-tendon unit (MTU) that present a long and compliant tendon with a relatively short fascicle if compared to other muscle groups. For example, configuration of Quads (VL in the specific ) MTU may be different, as curvature of fascicle could differ along the length of the whole muscle, especially close to the myotendineous junction. While I appreciate and not question the validity data presented on GM, what would the authors think it could happen in a MTU with different configuration? This should be addressed in the discussion

2- What do the authors think of the influence of exercise adaptations in a scenario with pre-to-post changes in fascicle length? There is evidence for contraction dependent adaptations are found for example between eccentric vs. concentric loading type (done with single snapshot ultrasound without the use of DIT methodology as this paper advocates) (see Franchi 2014 and 2017, and I hope, then, that those data (mine) are actually saying the truth, then! ha ha) and we know that the length of fascicle can increase also because of greater fascicle curvature that can be found close to the superficial aponeourosis . Can this new methodology implement also to better identify where the real end of the fascicle presenting curvature is on the superficial aponeurosis? Maybe this could be a suggestion for a comment in the discussion or an actual study. And if so, you know who I am and I like to see if something can be done on VL too!

3- practical applications is then to see dynamic behaviour of muscle fascicle first. Can this be obtained with just a flash isometric contraction too, without moving the muscle throughout the whole range of motion?
Additional comments: I enjoyed this paper and the advance in the methodology that this can bring.
I thank the authors for a nice read and an entertaining explanation of a new methodology advice that could actually make fascicle length assessment more reliable.


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: INFORMATION FROM DYNAMIC LENGTH CHANGES IMPROVES RELIABILITY OF STATIC ULTRASOUND FASCICLE LENGTH MEASUREMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors provide a clear and unambiguous manuscript with sufficient literature and background context. Ultrasound imaging of skeletal muscle is an emerging technique to understand dynamic muscle behaviour and is of general interest to the biomechanics, muscle mechanics fields. The article structure is sound and the hypotheses are well laid out.
Experimental design: The experimental design is adequate and the research question is well defined. The techniques and ethical standards are indeed met. There are some additional details of the methods utilized that I have suggested in the general comments section which the authors should clarify in the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: The data is statistically sound, however I would like to see some additional analysis performed (as outlined in the general comments). I have some suggestions regarding the conclusions for the authors which, in my opinion, would strengthen the manuscript.
Additional comments: Information from dynamic length changes improves reliability of static ultrasound fascicle length measurements

SUMMARY OF WORK:
In this study, the authors examine different strategies for manually tracking medial gastrocnemius fascicle length from B-mode ultrasound images during passive ankle rotations. Specifically, they compare fascicle lengths determined from a single static image, termed uninformed fascicle identification (UFI), to fascicle lengths determined from tracking a series of images allowing the identifier to adjust the initial fascicle length, termed data-informed tracking (DIT). They compared results from 3 different raters as well as from conditions where the fascicle was at an initial short length versus an initial long length. Their results show that DIT improves the reliability of fascicle length measurements and suggest caution when measuring fascicle lengths from one single ultrasound image as well as when comparing absolute fascicle lengths across different studies. The manuscript is well-written and would be of interest to ultrasound researchers. I suggest a number of things below that the authors should address in order improve the clarity/accuracy/completeness of the manuscript.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS:

ABSTRACT:

1.	Line 40: It is unclear what the authors are referring to by “four strategies.” Do you mean UFI, DIT, initial long and initial short? I am under the impression that UFI was compared to DIT only for a single frame (ie: the initial frame) whereas DIT initial long was compared to DIT initial short for a passive cycle (many frames). This sentence needs clarifying as the four strategies are not for the same condition.

INTRODUCTION:

2.	Line 65: I’m not sure that ‘seriously erroneous’ is the correct word choice. Inferences about fascicle behaviour from kinematics alone is challenging in MTUs that contain considerable SEE, but may provide information about fascicle behaviour in MTUs with negligible external tendon. I suggest rephrasing.

3.	Please clarify in the first paragraph of the introduction that you are referring to B-mode ultrasound.

4.	Line 72: I suggest replacing “in dynamic settings” with “during dynamic tasks”

5.	Line 96: I suggest using “optical flow algorithms” rather than “…modelling”
6.	Line 117:  Please clarify to the reader what you mean by “in practice”

7.	Line 136-126: Please include why the medial gastrocnemius is popular for ultrasound studies.

METHODS:

8.	Line 145: why was 5 out of the total 28 participants chosen for the analysis? Indeed a larger sample would improve the statistical power. This requires some clarifying.

9.	Line 167: how was the ultrasound probe secured to the participant during the experiments?

10.	Line 170-174: To my knowledge the ultrasound images were not “processed using a semi-automated algorithm” as is stated in the manuscript. This is partly misleading. I am under the impression that the authors used the Ultratrak GUI to manually track all images (both single frame and image series). Was Ultratrak in fact used to initially track the image sequences and then the observer then clicked through tracking results for each frame to update the locations of the upper and lower fascicle insertion sites? If so, this needs to be clarified. If not, it is unclear why Ultratrak was used rather than ImageJ or another image processing software. Please clarify.

11.	Line 180-184: Did the raters watch the ultrasound sequences first before tracking (for both the uninformed and the informed tracking)? From my experiences this is a very helpful way to understand fascicle behaviour before tracking manually during cyclical tasks. Further, did the raters always come back to the initial frame and adjust the fascicle end points in the DIT? This needs to be clarified.

12.	Line 230: I would like to see a brief description of the “offset-corrected condition” within the analyses portion of the methods. Please include this.

13.	The major concern I have with this analysis (and the accompanied statistical results) is that the authors present absolute lengths only. Indeed (as the authors note in the discussion), the differences in results from DIT for the initial short versus the initial long conditions are an artifact of the absolute fascicle length (and the fact that the fascicle may have been out of the field of view for the initial long condition) - specifically the increased likelihood for differences in identifying total fascicle length between raters. I would like to see further analysis comparing initial short and initial long but using % length change or strain.

RESULTS:

14.	Line 244-261: It is my preference to leave out p values if they are not significant.

15.	Please include results from analysis of % fascicle length change or strain as noted previously. These could be added to Figure A with a dual Y axis (left side absolute length change and right side % length change from initial or rest).

DISCUSSION:

16.	Line 290: I believe this is a typo and should be “this type of error” or “these types of errors”

17.	Line 309-318: To my knowledge, the joint movements you are tracking fascicles throughout are not cyclical but rather start at either a plantarflexed position (initial short) and move to dorsiflexed or vice-versa and do not repeat (ie: are not cyclical since they do not come back to initial position). This paragraph begins with discussing cyclical movements- which your results can provide some insight for, but do not assess. Please re-work this paragraph.

18.	Line 312: Out of curiosity, how many researchers did you personally communicate with in regards to their preference to start tracking on lengthened fascicles? Were all of these researchers trained in ultrasound by the same group(s)? In my opinion, lengthened typically means that the fascicle end points are out of (or nearly out of) the field of view of the telemed linear transducer, so I prefer shorter lengths.

19.	One of my major suggestions for the discussion would be for the authors to include some discussion of comparing these methods to the key frames adjustment that is implemented within Ultratrak. The key frames adjustment would qualify as a type of ‘informed tracking’ and seems to be the gold standard for many research groups tracking fascicles during dynamic tasks or dynamometer contractions. In particular, the first author of this manuscript has used Ultratrak (so presumably the key frames correction) in his previous studies.

20.	Line 354-355: As previously mentioned, I would like to see this analysis added to the manuscript. The statement “ this effect may be cancelled when calculating differences relatively to the absolute fascicle length” is, in my opinion, the major limitation to this study which the authors have the data to perform the analysis on.

21.	Line 360: I am not sure what you mean by “in a relative sense.” I believe that you mean that normalized length changes or strains are more consistent between raters but absolute length changes differ. Please clarify this sentence in the discussion.

22.	Line 365: “both static and active” should be rephrased to either “static and dynamic” or “passive and active”.

23.	Line 369-371: The statement “As such, we recommend caution when drawing conclusions from fascicle length comparisons with differences below 10% of absolute fascicle length” seems a bit bold to me. Numerous studies (including some by co-authors of this manuscript) do report fascicle length changes that are less than 10%, for example in the plantarflexors during normal walking. Comparing normalized length changes or strains across studies is, in my opinion a valuable metric.

24.	Line 373: “…when comparing absolute fascicle lengths” across what tasks? Please clarify

FIGURES:

25.	Figure 1: I would like to see Figure 1 also include the initial short conditions (either on the same plots or as C/D panels. Of interest to readers would be whether the fascicle follows a similar length change trajectory when shortening and lengthening. In addition, as previously mentioned, some methodological details regarding the “initial frame offset” (Fig 1B) is necessary within the manuscript.

OTHER COMMENTS:
26.	What was the rationale for passive ankle rotations rather that active (as a % of Fmax or max ankle moment)? From my own ultrasound tracking experiences, I do believe that tracking fascicle length changes in active muscle to be (slightly) more straightforward than passive muscle. If anything, I would lie to see this discussed as a limitation of the current study.


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

Input:
Title: INFORMATION FROM DYNAMIC LENGTH CHANGES IMPROVES RELIABILITY OF STATIC ULTRASOUND FASCICLE LENGTH MEASUREMENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I don't have any further comment.
Experimental design: I don't have any further comment.
Validity of the findings: I don't have any further comment.
Additional comments: I don't have any further comment.


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

Input:
Title: INFORMATION FROM DYNAMIC LENGTH CHANGES IMPROVES RELIABILITY OF STATIC ULTRASOUND FASCICLE LENGTH MEASUREMENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: All is good.
Experimental design: All is good.
Validity of the findings: All is good.
Additional comments: I commend the authors for a nice manuscript.
This has now further improve.


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: INFORMATION FROM DYNAMIC LENGTH CHANGES IMPROVES RELIABILITY OF STATIC ULTRASOUND FASCICLE LENGTH MEASUREMENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Text:

Line 95-95 The sentence “...because it is a superficial muscle with relatively short muscle fascicles and it has important contributions during tasks such as walking, running and jumping”  should include some reference(s).

Line 117: Authors state "From these 28 participants, 5 were randomly selected and single-image ultrasound recordings were taken for an intra-rater reliability test and the UFI analyses"

If I correctly understand the newly added Figure 1, then I believe that following the above copied sentence you need to add one more sentence that says.

“For the DIT comparisons, all 28 subjects were included”

If this is not correct then I am not sure Figure 1 matches the methods text, as from the left side of the figure it appears that all 28 subjects were included in at least the DIT portion of the analysis. If I had not looked at this figure but only read the text, then I would be under the impression that only 5 of the 28 were included for all analysis.

Line 280-281: Please include the specific figure number in Seymore paper in which you are referring to here

Line 321-323: The added sentence “However, other muscle-tendon units often present different fascicle geometries, for example the knee extensors have much longer fascicles and more curvature of the fascicles” requires a reference.

Line 399 Please add “the” to sentence “…by a single rater reliability of the analysis can be increased” should read “…by a single rater the reliability of the analysis can be increased”

Supplemental Files:

What do the data examples AVI videos correspond to? The videos appear to be of a failed auto tracking algorithm? These files  need a description bit of text or title to accompany them.

Figure 1 caption: I suggest “schematic” rather than graphical summary (this is not really a graph).
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: MULTI-SCALE AND MULTI-SITE RESAMPLING OF A STUDY AREA IN SPATIAL GENETICS: IMPLICATIONS FOR FLYING INSECT SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript had some grammatical errors, some jargon not defined, and colloquial English used in places (see General comments to author).  It would benefit from being read by a native English speaker.  I highlighted areas where additional references would be helpful in the General comments to author section.
Experimental design: In general this study seems well-executed, but research questions need to be more specifically defined in the introduction.  In the methods section the analyses that pertain to those questions need to be linked to those questions.
Validity of the findings: Results need to be clarified at times (see general comments to author).
Additional comments: This is an interesting study that investigates how varying the scale over which landscape genetic analysis is performed influences results.   I do worry that the authors’ reliance on Mantel tests muddies the inferences that can be drawn from the results.  In addition to acknowledging the limitations of Mantel tests, and performing other analyses to validate their results, the authors should discuss these limitations and the possible effects on their results in more detail in the discussion section.  They do discuss how limitations of Mantel tests can lead to erroneous inferences in a specific case on line 498, but they should address caveats of Mantel tests more generally with regards to their results.

At times I found the writing confusing.  In addition to having a native English speaker read the manuscript, the authors need to take care to present the actual results and not make general statements like those on lines 356: “Best values were observed” or 374: “best values were obtained” (see additional examples below).

One place that clarity must be improved is in the analyses described in the section “Multiple scales and multiple locations analysis”, because this seems to be the crux of this study.  At first read I was left wondering exactly what the authors intended by these analyses.  The authors need to clearly state which analyses pertain to which question, and what information would be gleaned from various potential results.  The link between this paragraph and the results presented in Figure 3 was not immediately clear.  The authors need to explicitly state what association they investigated, instead of using vague terms like “we tracked the evolution of” (line 280). The analysis presented in the second panel of Figure 3 is more straightforward, but it would be nice for the authors to set this analysis up in the introduction by telling us why it is important to investigate if correlation coefficients change over different geographic scales.

In addition, the authors need to take care to put their results in the context of others’ work in the discussion (especially in the discussion of how Mantel correlation statistics change with scale).

Specific comments are below:

Introduction:

I found the introduction interesting, and I think the authors could highlight the strengths of this study even more strongly by organizing them into their own paragraphs (for example one paragraph that explicitly focuses on scale and one that focuses on the value of replication across a large study area).  These points come across as it is currently written but I think this would clarify the strengths of this study even more strongly.

Line 58: The landscape genetic toolbox has greatly expanded in recent years, I’d remove “the landscape genetic toolbox is far from being established” from this sentence.

Lines 93 - 95: needs citation as currently stated

Line 100: remove “As a study system”

Line 102: Write out the number

Line 104: Move to methods

Last paragraph: Instead of a description of the species (most of which could be moved to the methods section), it would be helpful for the authors to outline a few questions they focused on (for readers that are unfamiliar with LG analyses).

Line 124: If the authors give specifics of localities they should refer to a map or table of locations.

Line 124: remove “a sampling of”

Line 125: give units. Also, the authors need to describe why 10 is relevant.

Lines 127 & 129: do the authors need to refer both to figure/table and write “supporting information”? The names make it clear this is supporting information.

Line 132: what publication are these loci described in

Line 142: remove “already”

Line 151: should be “allele”

Lines 181-183: It would be helpful for the authors to explain what is a plateau.

Line 815: It might be useful for the authors to also refer readers to Guillot et al. (2009, Molecular Ecology) here.

Line 201 should read “temperature”

Line 204: There is a typo.

Lines 212-215: I found this confusing.  It would be more clear if the authors said something like “M. galloprovincialis shows no preference for pine species. They will live in the dead wood of any species, which tend to include XXX on the Iberian peninsula”.

Lines 216-221: This is repetitive, please make more succinct.

Line 223 needs a citation

Line 232 should read “mill”

Line 244: Did the authors also test for colinearity when smaller areas were considered?

Lines 272-299: It would be helpful for the authors to introduce this section by describing the question they are addressing, and then to describe what insight various potential patterns would provide.  They say on line 280 that they tracked the evolution of areas. What does this mean?  In the results they present data on how the number of areas with a significant Mantel result changes with size of area investigated. How does this address the question originally posed in the introduction of does genetic structure or the influence of landscape features vary spatially?

Line 276:  Please clarify what the sentence beginning “scale dimension” means.

Line 277: replace “between” with “using”

Line 280: The authors need to describe what unbalancing and a supported hypothesis mean.

Line 281-285: I don’t understand how this gives the geographic distribution of areas, please clarify.

Line 295: Do the authors mean “cumulative”?

Line 313: If the authors are going to provide the delta k values they should explain what they mean in the methods section (I don’t think they are necessary).

Line 321: The authors should describe to which analysis this refers

It seems lines 326-329 belong in the discussion.  Also, it would be helpful for the authors to describe what these and other variogram patterns would mean in the methods section.

Line 333: what does “for a total of 116 and 102 alleles” mean/refer to?

Line 334: Can the authors provide some evidence of this? This could also be moved to the methods section, and results presented only for 10x10.

Line 343: The authors should move general statements like this to the discussion and focus on specific results here.

The sub-headings throughout the manuscript are helpful but it would be nice for them to match between sections (where is Multiple scales and multiple locations analysis in the results?)

Line 346: Give the actual percentages

Line 350: The authors need to clarify what this sentence means and to which analysis this refers.

Line 356: What is the “best” r?  Please re-word.  Also, there is a typo here.

Paragraph starting on line 358: If the authors refer to specific places they should show them on a map.

Line 368: The authors should keep their terms consistent, they use significant area, then non-supported area.

Line 380: Why “common”?

Line 383: This summary paragraph is helpful but the first sentence needs to be re-worded for clarity and cited.

Line 387:  The comment about environmental features appearing at different times can be removed.

Line 391: The authors should use the words large and small (not low)

Line 397: cite Figure 2 at the end of this sentence

Line 403: “To gather a genetic structure” doesn’t make sense, please re-word.

Lines 394-466 seem unorganized and should be re-structured to clearly discuss each point laid out in the results section. It would be helpful for the authors to add topic sentences instead of just continuously laying out points.  For example, the paragraph beginning on line 408 should begin with a sentence about what it is about.

Line 425: Please remove “deal with” and re-word

Line 428: This is a clear topic sentence

Lines 469-478: How does this relate to what others have found?

Typo on line 495 (capitalization)

Table 1: Abbreviations need to be defined in captions of other tables/figures (please take care to do that), so I do not think this table is necessary.

Figure 2: The authors need to describe a semi-variogram in the methods section.

Figure 3: The caption needs to clearly state what variable is on the y-axis.  “Development” is confusing, please re-state this.

Figure 5: The authors should change “sign” to “sig”, and define the abbreviations.

Table S1: Where is the description of what the abbreviations mean?


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: MULTI-SCALE AND MULTI-SITE RESAMPLING OF A STUDY AREA IN SPATIAL GENETICS: IMPLICATIONS FOR FLYING INSECT SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: ## Clarity of writing, English
In general the writing is clear. However, the English could be improved -- there are some dubious word choices and grammatical mistakes which hamper readability. Here are some examples:

Line 38: what does "to track the variation of inference" mean?

Line 42: should be "Detection of an effect of environmental features on gene flow"

Line 54: "It allows which ... to be inferred" should be "It allows inference about which ..."

Line 94: should be "...picture of the general effects of landscape on the dispersal..."

Line 98 (also 532): don't you mean "variability" instead of "versatility"? Or do you mean "has the power to *increase* versatility"

Line 402-404: what does "gather a genetic structure" mean? In general I don't understand this sentence.

Line 405 (and other places): what does "development of the variation of frequency of areas" mean?

Line 419: "important" doesn't seem like the correct adjective

Also check for incorrect and missing pluralization throughout.

## Context, references
The landscape genetic analyses used in the manuscript are typical of the norms for the field, and the references for the methods (as well as general analytical concerns specific to the field) are sufficient. Study-system-specific references and context are also sufficient. However, the method proposed in the paper is (at least superficially) similar to local regression methods and geographically weighted regression, both of which have been used in multiscale analysis (although not with pairwise data) -- in my opinion more attention could be paid to relevant statistical references outside the field of landscape genetics. A place to start looking might be:
Brunsdon, Fotheringham, Charlton. 1996. Geographically weighted regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geographical Analysis

## Figures, tables
The figures could be made more aesthetically pleasing by increasing resolution and reducing white space, but are generally clear ... although I suggest the following minor improvements for readability:
Figure 2: decrease size of plot relative to axis titles, capitalize axis titles
Figure 4: adding boxes around each panel would help with visual navigation. Also, a color scale would be informative -- what exactly do "low frequency" and "high frequency" mean?
Figure 5: units on x-axis, shorten titles substantially

## Structure, data
The general structure follows PeerJ standards, is self-contained, and the data (georeferenced microsat genotypes) is included in the supplement (as is the R code used to generate the results in the paper).
Experimental design: ## Relevance, originality of research question
The authors correctly identify that while environmental effects on animal movement are often scale dependent, yet few studies explicitly (or quantitatively) consider scale. The method presented here is novel to the field, to the best of my knowledge, and in my opinion contributes a useful idea about how to identify and describe scale dependence in isolation-by-resistance analyses.

## Rigor
The insect sampling is extensive, and the field and molecular methods are sufficiently detailed and rigorous.

## Description of methods
The landscape genetic analyses are sufficiently detailed; software and specific functions are referenced throughout. However, the goals of these analyses (and how they fit into the paper at large) were not clear until I read the results. I suggest that the introduction should contain the system-specific questions and hypotheses, and should lay a roadmap for the subsequent descriptions of analyses. For example, adding something to the effect of: "We first characterize the broad-scale genetic structure of the beetle across the study area. We then used the "isolation-by-resistance" (IBR) framework to model beetle dispersal as a function of temperature, elevation, and pine density. By subsetting the data to particular locations and spatial scales and repeating the analysis, we identify how the influence of environment on spatial genetic structure varies with spatial location and scale."

On this note, the last paragraph of the introduction belongs in the methods. Including relevant hypotheses and the motivating questions in the beetle system is fine in the introduction, but detailed description of the study system should be moved to the methods.

My main concern with the paper is that the methodological goal is not clear. There seem to be two intermixed goals. First, to determine what constitutes a sufficient sampling design (e.g. spatial scale) to detect an effect of environment on dispersal; in other words, what scale is sufficient to use in a hypothetical study to infer an effect. Second, to develop a method for investigating and visualizing scale dependence in the effect of environment on dispersal; in other words, given a single large-scale dataset, to determine at what scales an effect is present. While these goals are superficially related, they require different presentations, and in my opinion, different statistical support (details below). It should be clear from the outset which goal (one, the other, or both) this paper is addressing.

The first goal (study design re: spatial scale) is suggested by passages like the following (not a comprehensive list):

Lines 42-43 (Abstract): "Detection of environmental features on gene flow generally increased with an increasing scale of study"

Lines 394-400 (Discussion): "We observed a notable influence of scale on the detection of supported IBR hypotheses ... This correspondence suggested that at this range of scales, dissimiliarity between individuals was often not appropriate to show a significant effect of environmental features on gene flow"

Lines 476-478: "our results show a tradeoff between the sampling of small areas where effects of environmental feastures are strong but scarcely detected and the sampling of large surfaces, where this effect is weaker but often detected"

In my opinion, statements regarding optimal design with regards to "detection" of effects need to be backed up by a simulation study. There are three main reasons for this: (1) it is impossible to say if an effect is detected unless one knowns a priori whether it is true or not (clearly only possible with simulation). (2) With the current setup, sample size is confounded with spatial scale: smaller scales will contain fewer individuals, and a trivial consequence is that inference will be more "noisy" and less powerful. In a simulation study, one can keep sample size constant across spatial scales. (3) On any given dataset, it's difficult to say to what degree the results are artifacts of the particular spatial distribution of samples. I'm not saying that the real-world dataset used in the paper is useless for this goal (it's an excellent worked example), but I think the addition of a simulation study is necessary if the authors want to make statements about "detection" of effects with regards to study design.

However, if the paper is simply trying to illustrate an idea for a new exploratory statistical method, then I don't think simulation is necessary (although it would certainly add credibility).

On this note, the goal of the method as stated in the abstract isn't very clear: "a method for resampling of study areas at multiple scales and multiple locations (sliding windows) to track the variation of inference in spatial genetics". Based on the rest of the paper, it seems like the method is designed to determine what scales/locations exhibit a significant effect of the environment on spatial genetic structure, and I'd suggest rewording along these lines. In general, the methodological goal should be made much clearer in the abstract.
Validity of the findings: Appropriate care seems to have been taken with regards to assumptions underlying the molecular data (linkage disequillibrium, HWE, null alleles, etc.) The authors have been careful to employ multiple methods and address already published concerns about typical landscape genetic analyses.

One concern I have with regard to the proposed resampling method: no mention is made of controlling for Type-I errors, and how these might interact with sample size to influence the results. The goal is to determine if there's an effect of environment on dispersal across a set of locations and spatial scales. Effectively, this is accomplished by subsetting the data, but because the subsets of data across locations/scales overlap, null hypothesis tests across these will not be independent. If trying to aggregate these results over space to get a sense of what effects are most important at what scales, regardless of geography (as is done in figure 3A), then inflation of Type-I error will bias the percent of areas with significant isolation-by-resistance upward. The result could be very misleading if Type-I error varies systematically with spatial scale (for example, because tests at larger spatial scales share more of the same sampling locations).

Also, how might edge effects bias this method at locations along the margin of the study area?

In general, interpolating effect size (ie. Mantel r) onto maps might be more informative than interpolating frequency of rejected null hypotheses. One way to show both is to use color for interpolated effect size, and contour lines to show regions wherein p<0.05.

Finally, I'd suggest that the authors restructure the discussion: currently, it reads like two different papers (with the method-specific discussion in the first half, and the system-specific discussion in the second half). It would be more clear and more effective, in my opinion, to integrate the two sections; so as to show how the proposed method gives biological insight into the long-horned beetle system that would not obtained otherwise.
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: MULTI-SCALE AND MULTI-SITE RESAMPLING OF A STUDY AREA IN SPATIAL GENETICS: IMPLICATIONS FOR FLYING INSECT SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript reports the genetic structure of Momochamus galloprovincialis in the Iberian Peninsula. The authors detected that the effects of environmental features differed among spatial scales, suggesting that the combination of a resampled study area at multiple spatial scales across various locations provide a more general picture of the effects of environmental feature.
I highly evaluate the authors’ motivation for contributing the landscape genetics study, but dataset of M. galloprovincialis seems difficult to be discussed in context of this study. Kawai et al. (2006) showed that new mutualism system between Monochamus species and the pine wood nematode destroy original genetic structure formed by historical and environmental effects. I don’t know exact damaged areas of pine wilt disease in the Iberian Peninsula, but invasion of the nematode should affect the genetic structure of the beetle, i.e. they should not be in genetic equilibrium in the damaged area. Artificial movement of the beetle due to damage protection is also problematic to study the genetic structure. In such a situation, discussion of the land scape genetics must be done in more careful manner, at least divide the dames from damaged from undamaged areas.
Experimental design: Collecting the beetles throughout the Iberian Peninsula meets the aim of this study to show the gene flow there.
Many of the individual numbers from one dame were not enough for population genetics analyses, but resampling method could make up the results. This method sounds adequate.
Validity of the findings: Authors adopted well considered and sophisticated statistical methods. The results are well stated if the effect of invasion the nematode can be set aside.
Additional comments: -I think the main aim of this study is measuring gene flow of the beetle, not presenting a method for resampling of study areas at multiple scales and multiple location.
-Figure captions are not kind to readers. For example, what do you indicate by colors and ellipse of Figure1C? They should be more concise.
- “el al.” must not be in italics.


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: MULTI-SCALE AND MULTI-SITE RESAMPLING OF A STUDY AREA IN SPATIAL GENETICS: IMPLICATIONS FOR FLYING INSECT SPECIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Lines 35 & 48 should read "gene flow"

The introduction, methods and results are much clearer.  A few comments on the discussion:

Line 410: This is confusing, please re-word.

Lines 420 & 450: Please state this as cause and effect.  "A genetic structure" doesn't make sense, and line 450 is repetitive.

Line 436: "geographic scales" would be better than "study scales"

 Line 456: "causes" would be better than "origin"

Line 468: This is confusing, please re-word.

Line 495: affected how?

Line 510: "We speculate that" or "It is possible that" would be better than "we suggest".
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This manuscript has greatly improved.


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: MULTI-SCALE AND MULTI-SITE RESAMPLING OF A STUDY AREA IN SPATIAL GENETICS: IMPLICATIONS FOR FLYING INSECT SPECIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English is improved from the first submission, and the meaning is clear although there are still a few confusing word choices: I have some minor suggestions on word choice/grammar, listed line-by-line under "comments to authors".
Experimental design: The authors have substantially clarified the goals of this study. I have a few minor comments/questions about methodology that are listed line-by-line under "comments to authors".
Validity of the findings: No additional comments ... I am satisfied by the clarifying rewrites to the discussion and the authors' responses to my questions
Additional comments: Some minor comments/questions/suggestions, line-by-line:

65: What is meant by "method"? "Discipline" or "framework" seems more appropriate

66: "optimal" not "optimum". And what exactly is being optimized?

82: "limited" in what sense? Do you mean "incorrect inferences"?

109-110: Clarify ... "_spatial_ resampling methods". Also a statistical method is not a "perspective", per se. How about something like: "Spatial resampling methods (...) provide a technique to examine variation in inferences across geographic subsets of a single sampling design ..."

160: Language is a little atypical, instead consider something like: "To check for convergence of the Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm implemented by STRUCTURE, we ran ten independent Markov chains for 500,000 iterations each after an initial burn-in period of 200,000 iterations"

251: I'm confused by "values were set as negative". Do you mean reciprocal instead of negative? Assuming that edge weights (resistances) are calculated by averaging values of adjacent cells, then negative cell values would mean negative transition rates in the random walk, which doesn't make sense.

285: "Mantel" not "Mantels"

285: "areas of various spatial scales" doesn't make sense here; how about: "conducted across various spatial scales and locations"

293 (and elsewhere): "landscape analysis" is vague. Specifically, you are referring to the tests of IBD/IBR?

294: "generated sampling areas" not "sampling areas generated"

319: delete "tested"

328: Sentence is a bit garbled, use something like: "In the STRUCTURE analysis, the optimal number of admixed clusters was two (Figure S3)"

334: What's the test here? ANOVA of the first PCA axis as a function of cluster identity?

359: By positive effect, do you mean positive effect size (like a positive Mantel r)? Or do you mean a significant effect? The wording doesn't make sense as a hypothesis can't have an effect

361: "plateau" of what? The meaning of this sentence isn't clear

372: Does "low effects" mean a low effect size, or a low frequency of significant IBR tests?

373: "_spatial_ distribution of supported hypotheses"

391: Remove "context"

395: How about "dramatic variation in landscape features" instead of "dramatic landscape changes"

396-397: This sentence is vague ... What does "successfully" mean in this context? Is "success" finding significant IBD/IBR? I think what you mean is something like "across different inference methods, we successfully detected variation in the effects of environmental features on gene flow across spatial locations."

402: Change "could be explained by" to "are consistent with"

403: "by _known_ artifacts of the sampling design"

403-404: What does "known changes in the landscape structure" mean? Do you mean systematic spatial variation in the landscape variables?

407-408: "Detection of supported hypotheses" sounds strange and is unclear. I think you mean that patterns that were evident at large spatial scales/sample sizes (and so presumably real) were not found at small scales/sample sizes. You can reword to make this clearer. For example, wording like "Support was scarcely detected on the smallest spatial scale" could be changed to "Hypotheses were rarely supported at the smallest spatial scale".

410: "larger sampling" should be "larger sample size"

413: "the inference of the hypothesis tested" should be "inference about the tested hypotheses"

448-449: Check grammar here

450: "an effect" is too vague in this context. Effect of what?

457: "It is suggested" should be "We suggest"

460: "as well as _influencing_ the _continuity_ and fragmentation of pine tree cover ..."

468: "genetic differentiation of the species _due_ to evolutionary history"

479: as for line 468

505: Do you mean "_the statistical support for_ the Pr hypothesis _in this study_ suggests that ..."


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: MULTI-SCALE AND MULTI-SITE RESAMPLING OF A STUDY AREA IN SPATIAL GENETICS: IMPLICATIONS FOR FLYING INSECT SPECIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I found this resubmitted manuscript by Haran et al. to be well improved. I recommend it to be accepted.
Experimental design: This study seems well executed.
Validity of the findings: This study sounds.
Additional comments: No additional comments