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: INJURY INCIDENCE, CHARACTERISTICS AND BURDEN AMONG FEMALE SUB-ELITE FUTSAL PLAYERS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY WITH THREE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language is clear.
The introduction was able to present the study problematic.
The paper structure follow partially the conforms to journal guidelines.
Experimental design: Original research within journal scope.
The research question is relevant for female elite futsal players.
The investigation present ethical standard.
The Methods section (procedures) is well described with sufficient detail to replicate the study. However, participants division is not clear.
Validity of the findings: The results are not reliable for female elite futsal players.
Statistic well done.
Conclusion well stated.
Many speculations were supplied.
Additional comments: The manuscript entitled “Injury incidence, characteristics and burden among female elite futsal players: A prospective study with three-year follow-up” aimed to identify injury incidence, characteristics and burden among elite female futsal players. This topic is very interesting, especially for female players. However, the objective of study is not according with methods presented. The study was prospective with three follow-up of a specific futsal team. I have some concerns that are listed below.

Major concerns
The authors stated that 39 players were volunteered in the study, and they were prospectively followed during three consecutive seasons. According with results 14, 13 and 12 players were prospectively followed during one year. Thus, the title did not correspond to objective of study. Questions: Are different players in each season? Are the same players in each season?

How the authors define elite players? I am not sure about result reliability for elite players, since the study assessed just one team of second division. If the authors had followed more teams of second division, the results would be reliable to show injury incidence and burden among female Spanish futsal players (second division).
Considering these major concerns, the results of study are not reliable to show the incidence, characteristics and burden of female elite futsal players. The results are reliable only for one specific team.

Specific comments
Introduction
Ok.

Material and Methods
Line 100: The sample size and players level (second division) is the weakness of the study. In the discussion section, I suggest the authors present these limitations.
Lines 100-101: How many players participate of the study? In the table 1, the authors showed that team size was 14, 13 and 12 players in the seasons 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18, respectively.
Line 158: The authors’ statement that player match hour were calculated by 40 min with stopped clock/60. Is this equation indicates match hour for each player? Since match participation is different for each players during the season.

Results
Table 2: In the column “Season 16/17 Incidence (95%CI)”, in the first line there is a mistyping. I believe that the incidence is 9.03 and not 90.3.
Line 227: The authors statement “Lower extremity injuries (5.62 per 1000 hours of exposure) were the most frequently injured location.” I cannot see this information in the table 3 (line with this information seems belong to trunk). The table is confusing. Please adjust table 3.
Lines 266-270: These information can be represented in table (Suggestion).

Discussion
Lines 334-338: As suggestion, following the results section, in this paragraph the discussion is about mechanism and severity of injury.
Line 411: Change “simple” for “sample”.
Lines 412-413: I am not sure about the elite status of players. Since they participated of Spanish second division, and perhaps the injury incidence can be different for first division players. Furthermore, the study assessed only one team.

Conclusion
Lines 419-420: Table 3 shown that ankle strain had similar injury burden in comparison to hamstring and quadriceps


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: INJURY INCIDENCE, CHARACTERISTICS AND BURDEN AMONG FEMALE SUB-ELITE FUTSAL PLAYERS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY WITH THREE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well structured and well written. I suggest minor corrections that also follow in the word document (identified with track-changes).
Experimental design: The experimental design is clear. I suggest some minor alterations in terminology.
Validity of the findings: Findings seem valid, however as stated in the limitations, the number of athletes is very low for this kind of studies.
Additional comments: I congratulate the authors on the theme of the manuscript and on the effort to follow the team for 3 seasons. The study shows a carefully thought-out research setup. I suggest a minor revision.
Please consider the following comments:
1. As the athletes belong the the second division, I do not consider the to be elite. I suggest sub-elite.
2. I considerer misleading referring that 39 athletes  from the same team were prospectively followed during three consecutive seasons (2015-2018). It is not true. Please make the adequate adjustment to the text.
3. lines 35-40 do not link adequately the the rest of the abstract. Please make the transition smoother.
4. lines 143-144. I do not agree on the arrangement made to analyse severity of injuries. You do not follow the recommendations of Fuller (2006) although you refer the author. Please make the necessary changes to be in agreement with Fuller (2006). I consider that 0 days (with time-loss) are separate from slight injuries (1-3 days). I would consider in this arrangement the use of (career ending injury) as you have a career ending injury in the study.
5. line 164. What study did you use to make the statistical power calculations? Please make the reference.
6. line 262 and others. I recommend the use of time-loss injuries instead of "time lost".
7. 281-283 please make the reference to the authors/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: INJURY INCIDENCE, CHARACTERISTICS AND BURDEN AMONG FEMALE SUB-ELITE FUTSAL PLAYERS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY WITH THREE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have successfully highlighted gaps on the current knowledge to support the study.

For the most part of the manuscript, it was written in a clear and concise manner. However some errors in spelling/typos were noted.
1. Line 369 (e.g de longest)
2. Line 411 ."The simple size ...."
Experimental design: In the data collection section (2.2)
1. It is not yet clear on the flow of assessment of injured players:
    a. What happened to them when they sustained injury?
        i. At training and during competition - (assess and treated on the side line)
        ii. Who was/were responsible to assess and diagnosed the injured player and decide
            on the status of the player following injury?
        iii. Were diagnoses based on clinical judgements only? Were other forms of
            assessments performed?
2. Line 127 - 128. "Previous injuries were not taken into consideration,..... selection". The
    sentence is unclear. What did you mean by not taken into consideration?
3. Line 128 - 129. "Those individuals ... established after discussion were included,  ..
    medical staff."
         i. Did you mean included into the statistical analyses?
         ii. Does "recovery period was established" referring to estimated duration of
            recovery?
4. Line 130 - 131. " Previous injuries of those ... were not included." The sentence is
    unclear.
         i. However author stated that injuries were also classified into new and recurrent
            injuries. Did the author only refers to recurrence of injuries within the 3 seasons of
            study period? Please clarify.
5. Line 145. "Illnesses, any physical or mental complaint .... were excluded". What about
    any condition (illnesses, any physical or mental compliant that resulted in time away
    from activities?
6. Line 148. Are you referring stature to height? If so suggests to use the term height as
    that would be clearer.
Validity of the findings: Discussion section
2nd paragraph: Line 320 - 333
1. The current study found no difference in the incidence of injuries during match vs
    training, which was contrary to those reported by earlier researchers (refer to line 320
    322). Suggest authors to discuss potential factors that could be responsible for such
    observation.
4th Paragraph:
2. While instilling a preventative injury program might have an impact on reducing injury
    burden to a certain extent. Factors related to injury management including advancement
    in treatment approach could also affect speed of recovery.
Additional comments: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript. I felt that the manuscript explores area that of interest particularly in the field of Sports Medicine.


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: INJURY INCIDENCE, CHARACTERISTICS AND BURDEN AMONG FEMALE SUB-ELITE FUTSAL PLAYERS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY WITH THREE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: Congratulation to the authors for the study performed. This is a well-written manuscript that presents interesting results based on rational working hypothesis. However, some points should be clarified before publication.
Experimental design: The objectives are concise and agree with the theoretical framework proposed in the Introduction section. The logic of this study is clear.
Validity of the findings: The methodological questions are clear, and the results obtained are in accordance with the objectives and hypotheses raised.
Additional comments: However, I offer the following suggestions for improving the quality of the document:
1. The introduction provides a good perspective of the main topic, However to make the introduction more substantial, the author may wish to provide several actual references
2. Explain in more detail the participants of each season.
3. Explain training application of the results obtained for female futsal players
4. Explain the limitations of the 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: INJURY INCIDENCE, CHARACTERISTICS AND BURDEN AMONG FEMALE SUB-ELITE FUTSAL PLAYERS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY WITH THREE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I reinforce that the manuscript is well structured and well written. I suggest minor corrections that also follow in the word document (identified with track-changes).
Experimental design: The experimental design is clear. I suggest some minor alterations in terminology.
Validity of the findings: Findings seem valid, however the low incidence of injuries in the last season do need some explanation.
Additional comments: Thank you for considering my suggestions.

Please consider the following comments:

1.
Line 63: 	Might want to change from elite to any kind of level futsal practice

2.
Line 110: players analyzed?

3.
Line 137. Please refer to ultrasound imaging.

4.
Lines 203 and 2014. Why?

5.
Line 211:  2007 not 2017.

6.
As stated in the first revision “lines 243-244. I do not agree on the arrangement made to analyze the severity of injuries. You do not follow the recommendations of Fuller (2006) although you refer the author. Please make the necessary changes to be in agreement with Fuller (2006). I consider that 0 days (with time-loss) are separate from slight injuries (1-3 days). I would consider in this arrangement the use of (career ending injury) as you have a career ending injury in the study.”
Please rephrase lines 243-244 to take in consideration fullers 2006 injury classification. Was it accounted for or not? It is not clear to me.

7.
Also, Change TABLE 2 to “career ending”

8.
Please explain the low incidence of injuries in the last season analyzed.


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: INJURY INCIDENCE, CHARACTERISTICS AND BURDEN AMONG FEMALE SUB-ELITE FUTSAL PLAYERS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY WITH THREE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Author have addressed all the comments made by the reviewer in the current manuscript (revised version).
Experimental design: Author have addressed all the comments made by the reviewer in the current manuscript (revised version).
Validity of the findings: Author have addressed all the comments made by the reviewer in the current manuscript (revised version).
Additional comments: Author have addressed all the comments made by the reviewer in the current manuscript (revised version).


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: INJURY INCIDENCE, CHARACTERISTICS AND BURDEN AMONG FEMALE SUB-ELITE FUTSAL PLAYERS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY WITH THREE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: -
Experimental design: -
Validity of the findings: -
Additional comments: The manuscript provides very interesting information, and I believe the results and conclusions will be very useful for researchers in this topic. I really appreciate  the authors  have followed the suggestions made and I consider that the manuscript is ready to be published in this journal.


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: SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF NAC TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS IN GOSSYPIUM BARBADENSE UNCOVERS THEIR ROLES IN RESPONSE TO VERTICILLIUM WILT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: 1. Lines 84-86 in the introduction section to the manuscript mentioned that ‘the availability of diploid and tetraploid cotton genomes has allowed scientists to identify the NAC gene family members at genome-wide scale, such as 145 genes in G. raimondii (Shang et al., 2013), 141 in G. arboreum (Shang et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2018), and 283 in G. hirsutum (Sun et al., 2018). However, systematic analysis of NAC genes in G. babardense is still lacking’. Please explain the difference among G. raimondii, G. arboreum, G. hirsutum and G. babardense. In addition, the basic gene structure and chromosome location of NAC genes in G. babardense were performed in the manuscript. However, the functional evolution analysis of G. babardense is rare. The evolutionary relationship between G. babardense and NAC genes in G. raimondii, G. arboretum, G. hirsutum or other plants should be described in the manuscript, including phylogenetic tree, gene motif analysis and collinearity analysis. This section can be improved by referring to Liu et al. (Genome-wide analysis of the NAC transcription factor family in Tartary buckwheat (Fagopyrum tataricum)). BMC Genomics (2019) 20:113.
2. In the results section (line 290 to line 291, page 16), mentioned that most duplicated gene pairs (80.77%) demonstrated similar expression patterns. Please explain whether there is functional redundancy in this case.
3. In the results section (line 311 to line 312, page 17), why choose these 15 differential genes for qRT-PCR analysis. What is the basis of selection?
4. In the discussion section (line 321 to line 323, page 17), please explain the reason for the difference in the number of NAC genes in G. barbadense, G. hirsutum and G. raimondii.
5. The reference format needs to be unified, the page number information should be complete.
6. For real-time PCR experiment, please provide the information of PCR efficiency calibration curves for each pair of primers according to the MIQE guidelines (The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments.2009, Clinical Chemistry 55:4).
7. Why do the qRT-PCR experiments use actin as internal reference gene?


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: SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF NAC TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS IN GOSSYPIUM BARBADENSE UNCOVERS THEIR ROLES IN RESPONSE TO VERTICILLIUM WILT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: On the whole, the English writing of this manuscript is very clear, the expression is accurate, the experimental design is reasonable, the results are analyzed in place, the discussions are logical, the conclusion are also persuasive. The data and figures provided are clear and comprehensive, and the paragraph layout is also very organized. In any case, there are several minor errors and deficiencies in the manuscript that need to be supplemented and improved.
Experimental design: 1. Materials and Methods (In line 147): the VW inoculation method should be briefly described, such as the amount of inoculum.
2. Materials and Methods (In line 154), the author chose the 18S rRNA gene as an internal control gene in qPCR. In fact, there are several genes, such as β-actin,GAPDH,18s-rRNA, can be selected. The relevant literatures should be cited to explain why 18S rRNA was chosen as the internal control gene.
Validity of the findings: 3. Result: Line 202 should be moved to the discussion section, since that this sentence is the comparison between your founding and previous literature.
4. In the abstract (24 lines), the author believed that the GbNAC gene family had undergone strong purifying selection during the evolution. Thus, in the discussion section, this opinion should be discussed in more detail.
5. Other minor errors have been underlined on the manuscript.
Additional comments: This work had indeed filled the gap in the research on the NAC family genes of sea-island cotton. In particular, the work discovered 62 NAC genes that may be related to the disease resistance of sea- island cotton, which has important value for future cotton resistance breeding.


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: SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF NAC TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS IN GOSSYPIUM BARBADENSE UNCOVERS THEIR ROLES IN RESPONSE TO VERTICILLIUM WILT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper described a comprehensive genome-wide analysis of NAC genes from cotton. The experimental was well carried and the manuscript contains novel founding. However, I have some concern which the authors should revise
1- Please check the English all over the manuscript
ie: line contained the largest number should say the highest
line 284 Three types, do you mean three clusters or three patterns
line 343- Arabidopsis ANC ?? do you mean NAC.
Experimental design: 2- Authors used RNA-seq data from G. babardense cv. 7124 they should give information about this cultivars if it’s sensitive or tolerant..etc
3-line 99 in the title: sea-island cotton genome
4- Why the number of motifs searched by MEME is 20. Since the study is informative and no further domain functional analysis they could limit only to 10 motif search
5- Why not using PLACE software for Cis-acting element search. Generally, PLACE and PlantCARE are both used.
6-line 146 from to line 149: not necessary details line147. Starting from where the plants until line 149 RNA-seq
7- In candidate gene expression analysis I have several concerns
- Why using roots sample and not in both leaves and roots.
- Why focusing on hormone treatment and not Abiotic stresses such as salinity, drought..etc
- Authors should use two resistance contrasting cultivars for RT-qPCR analysis
- Authors should justify the selection of their 15 candidate gene for RT-qPCR (Arabidopsis orthologs, RNA-seq..etc)
- Statistic analysis
8: identification of membrane-bound TF is very important because NTL NAC genes play an important role in stress response.
9- why using only NAC protein from Arabidopsis in the tree how authors defined the phylogenetic groups. Plant NAC are usually divided into groups a–h. please see Shen et al. (2009): BioEnergy Research 2, 217–232
10- Authors should only provide Cis-regulatory element for their candidate genes only and not for all NAC genes (Figure 7). Besides, the correlation between orthologous relationship, phylogeny, Cis element, and expression analysis should be further discussed.
11. Figure 8 is not necessary and should be removed
Validity of the findings: The publication contains novel information including gene discovery and characterization.
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: SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF NAC TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS IN GOSSYPIUM BARBADENSE UNCOVERS THEIR ROLES IN RESPONSE TO VERTICILLIUM WILT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English writing of this manuscript is very clear
Experimental design: The experimental design is reasonable
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: In the responses to questions 1, 2 and 6, I did not find the corresponding answer according to the number of lines you provided. Please further check the location information provided.


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: SYSTEMATIC ANALYSIS OF NAC TRANSCRIPTION FACTORS IN GOSSYPIUM BARBADENSE UNCOVERS THEIR ROLES IN RESPONSE TO VERTICILLIUM WILT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised manuscript is better than the first version and at this state is suitable for publication
Experimental design: All reviewers suugestion were considered which made this section more clear andd provided lacked information in the first version
Validity of the findings: The findings is very interresting and reported novel information about NAC family in cotton in response to stress
Additional comments: The manuscript could be accepted without further revision


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

Input:
Title: MHC CLASS I ALLELE DIVERSITY IN CYNOMOLGUS MACAQUES OF VIETNAMESE ORIGIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	In line 128, a total of 882 Mafa-A and 859 Mafa-B cDNA sequences were obtained, which led to the identification of 100 MHC class I alleles. How many cDNA sequences does each of these alleles have? This information is important because if an allele has many cDNA sequences, it is suggested to be a highly expressed or prevalent allele. In contrast, if an allele has few cDNA sequences, it is suggested to be a lowly expressed or rare allele.
2.	In Figure 1, the numbers in the black boxes are not visible.
3.	In Figure 2, since Mafa-A1*036:04 is the cross over product of the other two alleles, Mafa-A1*036:04 should be placed at the top row while the other two are in the 2nd and 3rd row for comparison.
4.	In Figure 3, figure legend should explain the meaning of the numbers located at the branch points.
5.	Line 129, “sequences alignment” should be “sequence alignment”.
6.	Line 205 and 317, “to coping with” should be “to cope with”.
7.	Line 293, “highly” should be “high”.
Experimental design: 1.	In order to identify various MHC alleles, the authors produced cDNA from the total RNA, amplified MHC class I genes and performed sequencing. However, these procedures may introduce errors and lead to incorrect identification of novel MHC class I alleles. For example, epitranscriptomic RNA modifications or errors made by reverse transcriptase may introduce false-positive polymorphisms. The authors should discuss how these factors influence the findings of this study.
2.	This study found 28 MHC class I alleles, which were not previously identified. What are the improvements in methodology used in this study enable the identification of the novel alleles? For example, are there more animals used in this project to allow more comprehensive characterizations?
3.	The authors should further expand the discussion on how findings from this study may contribute to using cynomolgus macaque as a model organism for MHC research.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: In this manuscript by Huang et al, the authors studied the diversity of MHC class I genes in cynomolgus macaques of the Vietnamese origin. They identified 28 novel alleles and showed that recombination is one potential source of MHC class I diversity. The manuscript is overall clear and easy to follow. However, the authors need to address the above-mentioned questions.


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: MHC CLASS I ALLELE DIVERSITY IN CYNOMOLGUS MACAQUES OF VIETNAMESE ORIGIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the language is fluent and clear, except for some minor grammar mistakes and word usage errors which have been highlighted in the PDF, most of them are plural or singular form related or grammatical tense related mistakes.

On page 7, the author mentioned “the association between MHC I diversity and disease susceptibility ”, we already know that certain MHC I gene in human is associated with certain autoimmune diseases, it would be better if the author could cite some reports of the above association in macaque or other primates.
Experimental design: A couple of previous MHC gene diversity reports of macaques cloned and sequenced the full sequence of MHC I genes, however in this paper, only the exon 2 and 3 are cloned and sequenced, any amino acid mutation in any other domain might change the structure and function of MHC I genes. Please state the reason why clone and sequence the exon 2 and 3 only.
Validity of the findings: For functional immunologic studies, the diversity of amino acid sequence of MHC I genes is more valuable than mRNA sequence, therefore, some readers might be more interested in the amino acid sequence of the novel alleles. It would be more valuable if the author could present the amino acid sequences of novel MHC I alleles in the raw data.
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: MHC CLASS I ALLELE DIVERSITY IN CYNOMOLGUS MACAQUES OF VIETNAMESE ORIGIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript is constructed and written in good professional approach, however, it might be better to start the abstract with MHC instead of disease as the reporting is based on MHC alleles. Some typos needs to be fixed like- in title the “cynomolgusmacaques”, abstract line 3rd “tohuman” and elsewhere in the whole manuscript before final submission.

Background information seems sufficient but, at the end of line 66 it would be nice to include a case study like- “Differential Response of the Cynomolgus Macaque Gut Microbiota to Shigella Infection” (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0064212)

Figures and tables are structured to meet the standards.
Experimental design: The aim of the research by in large fits to the scope of the journal.

The manuscript provides information which would be beneficial to biomedical research, however, more further studies are required for its relevance.

Analysis of recombination in Mafa-A and Mafa-B alleles segment, though the study point is elaborate but would be more convincing if it would include the intron sequences and explain
Validity of the findings: Impact of the study not properly explained with suitable examples, like in conclusion, it would be desired to have more information on the beneficial aspect of shared and unique alleles. Then it would provide readers a direct impact vision in biomedical studies.

In, "Analysis of recombination in Mafa-A and Mafa-B alleles" segment, though the study point is elaborate but would be more convincing if it would include the intron sequences and explain

There are number of speculations in the manuscript but some time its good to provide little rationale at least based on earlier studies like.
Additional comments: The manuscript is good to its original aim, however, it can be more polished with some more information to relate its direct impact on biomedical research and keeping the results analysis tight. Some repetition can be avoided, like- the information on 100 alleles studied and 28 found unique can be constructed more emphatically by discussing on unique ones relevance.


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: MHC CLASS I ALLELE DIVERSITY IN CYNOMOLGUS MACAQUES OF VIETNAMESE ORIGIN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made corresponding changes in text and figures.
Experimental design: The authors have clearly addressed reviewers' questions.
Validity of the findings: The authors have clearly addressed reviewers' questions.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed reviewers' questions and clarified the informations in text/figure.


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

Input:
Title: MHC CLASS I ALLELE DIVERSITY IN CYNOMOLGUS MACAQUES OF VIETNAMESE ORIGIN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

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


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

Input:
Title: MHC CLASS I ALLELE DIVERSITY IN CYNOMOLGUS MACAQUES OF VIETNAMESE ORIGIN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: After desired changes, the manuscript seems good in linguistic flow along with scientific approach. There seems to be adequate background context provided and the flow of data matches the context. Hypothesis is justified by the findings and relevant discussion.
Experimental design: Experiments are well designed to the scope of this journal. The findings definitely provides new insight on use of cynomolgus macaques of Vietnamese origin in biomedicine.
Validity of the findings: Data provided are up to the standard of this journal and in sync with the hypothesis. Discussion is little stretchy and could be fitted more. Over all the have come up with good approach to justify their findings.
Additional comments: Authors have successfully remodeled the manuscript story and have made good changes along with complying the concerns raised.


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: SQUIRREL MONKEY RESPONSES TO INFORMATION FROM SOCIAL DEMONSTRATION AND INDIVIDUAL EXPLORATION USING TOUCHSCREEN AND OBJECT CHOICE TASKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors aimed to compare squirrel monkey responses to information gained from a social demonstrator versus information gained from individual exploration. Though the monkeys failed to learn the discrimination task presented, both on a touchscreen and with 3D objects, the authors found the monkeys tended to repeat their own selections regardless of whether it was rewarded. In the touchscreen experiment, repetition of selections did not vary between individual and social conditions, while when tested with 3D objects, selection repetition was more likely in the individual condition compared to the social condition. The authors argue that despite failing to train the squirrel monkeys on this task, the study design they employed is unique in providing a means to compare responses based on information source.

The paper is accomplished and well written. The introduction lacks a cohesive argument but has the potential to be bolstered with support from previous studies.

[line 46-50] Explain why the effects of information from a social source are not equivalent to effects of information from personal experience. This seems important to your argument for using this experimental set up, yet what problems exist are not evident here. Also, research exists that explores how individual and social information sources can combat to influence responses. Vale et al. (2017) report how personal experience information measures up when confronted with differing information from social sources in nonhuman primates. Further, I am not sure what claim you refer to as being problematic when based on human behavior or that of our evolutionary relatives.
(Vale, G. L., Davis, S. J., Van De Waal, E., Schapiro, S. J., Lambeth, S. P., & Whiten, A. (2017). Lack of conformity to new local dietary preferences in migrating captive chimpanzees. Animal behaviour, 124, 135-144.)

[line 51-53] This sentence comes too early in the introduction and should appear closer to the end of it. A more thorough argument needs to be constructed before the details of the current study need to be articulated.

[line 59-62] Research supports this, no need to speculate. See below reference.
Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal cognition, 8(3), 164-181.

[line 71-72] It is unclear what questions you are referring to here. Overall, I’d like to see a more coherent argument in this introduction, with more literature to bolster it in order to outline the questions you seek to answer and the specific aims of your study.

[line 101-106] Indeed Monfardini et al. (2012) found information learned socially versus individually lead to different rates of learning in monkeys and humans. However I do not see how the learning process occurred “under significant memory load” as stated in line 103, because Monfardini et al. report on only the first and second responses for each pair of stimuli. Perhaps a bit of clarification on this point is warranted.
Experimental design: As mentioned above, a more organized introduction would include better defining the relevance and more clearly stating the research questions. As for the description of the methods, they are clear and I only have a few notes on them.

[line 160] How was the raisin delivered to the monkey - a dispenser or human?

[line 166] Were research sessions conducted on separate days or could more than one occur within the same day?

[line 170] I recommend including in this first sentence of the testing procedures section that the experimental task consisted of two stages. This way, when first mention of Stage A occurs it is not unexpected.

[line 234–238] The description of Stage B can be written more concisely. Stage A was described well and so it is sufficient to refer to Stage A procedures without having to rewrite them.

[line 261-263] This information belongs in the methods section.
Validity of the findings: I am not well-versed with general linear mixed models and so cannot offer comment on the validity of these statistical analyses.

The content of the results section could benefit from some organization. In general, the results section is for reporting results of the statistical analyses. Interpretation of these results (for example, in lines 263 -267; 559-565; 578-580) is best left for the conclusion/discussion. Also, description of the methods for the statistical analyses pops up throughout this section and could be moved to the Statistical Analysis subsection of the methods.

[line 305 -307] These findings also reported by Monfardini et al., 2012. Reference to this in the discussion would add to the paper.
Additional comments: The article has merit and reports on a valid method for comparing responses in a discrimination task. Overall, the writing can be made a bit more concise by using "that" less frequently and omitting other small filler words. Structurally, I feel some parts of the sections leak into each other, resulting in a cloudy presentation of the research. Stricter adherence to a logical argument in the introduction will greatly improve the paper and support the conclusions described 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: SQUIRREL MONKEY RESPONSES TO INFORMATION FROM SOCIAL DEMONSTRATION AND INDIVIDUAL EXPLORATION USING TOUCHSCREEN AND OBJECT CHOICE TASKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: There are areas which need some clarification. These are highlighted in the general comments.
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: Abstract:
Abstract is a good explanation of the experiments, but I think it is missing context and background information. It is clear what you did, but why you did it, and how your results actually inform us is not clear. A sentence or two at the start and end of the abstract should fix this.

Introduction:
Lines 55-69. None of this seems incorrect to state, but it would be appropriate to support these predictions with references.

Exp 1 Methods:
Lines 154. To someone unfamiliar with the training of managed animals, “trained via Shaping” may not make much sense. Elaborate a bit, or include a reference, or both.

Line 160. Was this sunburst reward cue always a black and white circle? (In the example, a correct yellow triangle turns into a sunburst circle) If so, could this not reinforce the selection of circles, or even for the colors black or white?

Line 211. In the puppet trials – Was the experimenter controlling the puppet visible? Otherwise, I do not really see the difference in these two trial types. I think this experimental procedure would have been vastly improved by a conspecific demonstrator (either real, if the experiment allows) or via a video.  I think all this addition has done is complicated the analysis and interpretation of the results, without actually adding much. If the authors have a theoretical reason for one being better than the other, I think choosing the the single method would of improved this – as a direct comparison between experimenter and puppet has very little theoretical implications in itself (In my opinion, I suppose!).

Line 211 continued. It is also not clear the animals’ attention to social information was quantified. Did all individuals definitely observe the demonstrator make their selection in all trials? If they were looking away - was this still classed as a social information trial? Or is this information not available. I think quantifying the attention of the animal is extremely important here – and without it, results cannot be interpreted how the authors wish. Please describe the steps taken to make sure animals attended to the social information in the first place. I think this is my biggest concern of the experiment.

Line 228: Where does this criterion come from? It seems a little arbitrary. Justify this criterion level I the text.

Line 234. I think there are bigger differences in Stage A and Stage B (2 stimuli vs. 3 stimuli trials) than the authors claim.

In the unrewarded information trials of Stage B, the first choice made by the monkey may be incorrect (depending on which trial it is). This information does not allow the monkey to infer where the correct choice should be by T2, as there are 2 choices remaining (1 correct, so also, 1 incorrect). This means the monkey could use the information from the first trial perfectly, but also, still be incorrect 50% of the time. This would mean T3 should be Trial where success should be calculated in Stage B, as in this format it takes at least 2 different selections to be 100% sure where the reward it.

Perhaps how this was done will be clearer as you present the results, but at this stage, this isn’t clear.

Edit: It is now clearer in the data, but I think the trial success becomes redundant. If assessing T2 for Stage B, only the WSLS I believe is relevant.  If assess T3 for Stage B, then the trial success is relevant. I think the analysis could be simplified to only WSLS data.

Or, since only a single individual progressed to this Stage – I would be tempted to remove this stage completely from the manuscript. As, the data from a single individual can only be very speculative at best, and therefore adds little the manuscript (and if anything, detracts away from Stage A).

Line 240. Mention your random effects here, as I notice in the actual stats they are included. So it would be informative to add this here too.

Exp 1 Results

Line 270. The statistics employed here are not clear. There are no actual results (test and/or P values) reported in the text, or, in the table – simply just an asterix to represent significance. It seems like these are from a binomial test, or something similar, but this isn’t mentioned here or in the methods. Maybe I’ve missed something, but please make this clear.

Exp 2

Much of the comments above are repeated for Exp 2. So please apply these to both experiments.

Discussion

Line 605. I don’t believe motivation is necessarily the issue, as proved by the animals taking part. But yes, I do agree the lack of extensive training is likely the issue, however I understand that it is additionally problematic if the animals are too trained as then you cannot observe a learning strategy as well. As a comment, I think a suitable design would have been to train half of your subjects on the task with only the individual information trial structure, and half of your subjects with just the social information trial structure, and see which group were quicker to ‘master’ the task (e.g. reach your criterion %). I do not suggest any changes or, repeat experiments, just a comment for the future.


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: SQUIRREL MONKEY RESPONSES TO INFORMATION FROM SOCIAL DEMONSTRATION AND INDIVIDUAL EXPLORATION USING TOUCHSCREEN AND OBJECT CHOICE TASKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well-written in clear English. There are a couple of uses of words which may not be the easiest for particularly non-native speakers to understand and these have been highlighted under minor comments.

I think there are places (noted in minor comments) where the authors could provide some more background literature that would provide more support for their proposals and present the findings more clearly as relevant to many aspects of social learning.

The raw data are made available on OSF. However, I could not open “squirrel_monkey_MDA_LR.csv” and got the error message “Table too large to render”, so the authors might want to check this. The other files opened and appear to contain all the necessary raw data.

The structure of the article is in an acceptable, clear format. The submission is self-contained and presents the results of two linked experiments.

The figures are clear and well described. The box plots are especially useful in displaying the results. The authors might want to put a little bit more space between the y-axis label and the numbering on several of the graphs. It might be good to also add a border to Fig 4 for consistency. All figures appear to be of a good resolution.
There are a lot of results to take in – the figures are very helpful with this, but I wonder if an additional table of results might be useful? It may prove too difficult to amalgamate all the different model results, but if possible it may make them easier to digest.
Experimental design: The article clearly identifies what the aims were with the experimental design. Even though the monkeys did not pass the training criteria and the original aims of the study (of social vs individual information) were therefore impossible to fulfill, the authors make clear what other, interesting findings can be drawn from the results.

The methodology appears to be performed rigorously and to a high standard. The ethical statement could do with being more detailed (i.e. stating that the methods met the appropriate guidelines and that the subjects weren’t food or water deprived etc.). Ethical approval from both the university and research facility are included in supplemental information.

The methods are described in sufficient detail and should be sufficient to replicate. I did not see the R code made available, which would be beneficial to the readers.
Validity of the findings: The study aims to provide new insight into the use of social vs individually acquired information in squirrel monkeys. While the authors were not able to fulfil their original aims since the monkeys to not reach the testing criteria, it still provides information that is of interest and benefit to this field of research, such as a comparison of touchscreen and 3D and an insight into how squirrel monkeys deal with such a task. The conclusions are well stated and linked to the research questions that they identify.The authors identify their speculation as such and make some interesting points.
Additional comments: Summary
This study attempted to examine the effects of source on socially vs individually attained information in an attempt to better understand how humans and NHPs may differ in their use of social information. The monkeys tested did not reach the goal criteria for learning the task and thus the authors were unable to achieve their primary objective. However, the data still provide insights into the monkey’s use of social vs individually learned information and pre-existing biases that are revealed in these tasks.
Overall I found this study to be well written, interesting and of value to the field. It is very useful for other researchers to see “negative results” and interesting that the monkeys did not seem to learn from the task, irrespective of source of information.  It is also useful to compare touchscreen vs 3D stimuli as the use of touch screen paradigms is common in this field.

Minor comments:

Abstract – I think you should try and include the nature of the social demonstration (e.g. puppet and human) in the abstract, otherwise the reader might assume as I did from reading it that the social demo was from a conspecific.

L51 – Just a thought, but I’ve heard some discussions lately on abandoning the use of “New World” and “Old World” primates recently because of the Eurocentric origin of the labels. Could consider something like “platyrrhine monkey” instead?
L62 – Might it be relevant to perhaps discuss/cite some of the overimitation literature here? I think in general this paragraph would benefit from some support from the social learning literature.
L95 – You use “vicarious” here and elsewhere – is there another way to more plainly phrase this concept? It might be somewhat confusing for some, especially non-native English speakers.
L104 – Could you perhaps add a bit more detail about the differing effects found?
L144 – Could you add a statement to confirm that the relevant animal ethics guidelines were adhered to?
L291 – Use of vicarious again, perhaps you could use “demonstrated” instead to imply demonstration, but not necessarily by conspecific or human?
Without being an expert in GLMMs, the models seem to be built appropriately and contain the relevant factors as fixed and random effects. The random effects differ across the experiments, but this is explained in the footnotes.
L298 – I’m not familiar with the Helmert contrasts that are used here – I assume that they control for the multiple comparisons between the three information sources (such as when you compare between levels of a factor in a GLMM with “normal” contrasts?) – if so it might be useful to make this clear in the text

Results
Would be good to see the confidence intervals for all the results.
L339 – I think it best not to use phrases such as “approached significance”
L358 – Again, perhaps rather say they improved, but not significantly so, same on L644 & legend of Fig 4
Great that Exp 2 was pre-registered!
L453 – Could you display another measure of effect size here that might make the magnitude easier for the reader to see?

Discussion
L625 – Is there any literature on similar task competence in squirrel monkeys that could be cited here?
L637 – Is there any literature from primates or other animals about positive reinforcement being more effective in learning than negative feedback (in the sense of reward/something being withheld) that could be cited here?
L682 – This is a very interesting point and I’d love to see a bit more discussion on it– can you expand slightly more on how this repetition might be confounded by researchers with social learning, by perhaps giving an example or hypothetical scenario?
Do you think the human not “eating” a reward in Exp1 may have influenced the saliency/success of the social demonstration? Perhaps something worth discussing.


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: SQUIRREL MONKEY RESPONSES TO INFORMATION FROM SOCIAL DEMONSTRATION AND INDIVIDUAL EXPLORATION USING TOUCHSCREEN AND OBJECT CHOICE TASKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have adequately addressed all of my suggestions.
Experimental design: The authors have adequately addressed all of my suggestions.
Validity of the findings: The authors have adequately addressed all of my suggestions.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: SQUIRREL MONKEY RESPONSES TO INFORMATION FROM SOCIAL DEMONSTRATION AND INDIVIDUAL EXPLORATION USING TOUCHSCREEN AND OBJECT CHOICE TASKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written and clear, and now contains sufficient context after the first round of revisions.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: Still some minor concerns, addressed below.
Additional comments: I think the authors have made a good attempt to clarify points made by myself, the editor, and the other reviewers, and specifically, the issues I raised have been now clarified. Most of my concerns about have been satisfied except one regarding the success criterion, which I elaborate on more below. On the whole however, I would be comfortable recommending this article for publication, after the authors highlight the following potential issues in their methods.

In response to the following: “To achieve the performance criteria of 75% on T2s and T3-5s in 3 consecutive sessions by sheer chance/random guessing is extremely unlikely (which we calculated in advance). The 75% level, which was above chance but below ceiling, made it (we thought) an appropriate criterion, as it was not too easy nor too difficult, and therefore a useful determinant of whether monkeys grasped the contingency.”

I am still a little unconvinced by this criterion (if I am understanding correctly) in Experiment 1. To advance from Stage A (two-stimulus task), the monkeys needed to achieve 75% on T2 (3 correct choices out of the 4 problems, for 3 sessions in a row).  This would mean a monkey who succeeds in 9 out of 12 consecutive T2 trials would reach a threshold to move onto Stage B (Correct?). This criterion is arguably still not strict enough for a couple of reasons. Firstly, this criterion does not represent a statistically significant deviation from chance (traditionally speaking… binomial, p=0.07). Secondly, as this criterion is being constantly tested throughout the 10+ testing sessions, type 1 errors become much more likely as time progesses. After 60 sessions (which at least one individual was exposed too) the animal is very likely to reach this criterion by chance (a multiple comparisons problem), as this criterion would have been tested for 20 times by this point. Ideally, a set amount of sessions should have been completed, and a binomial calculation should have been calculated once at the end of these sessions.

In addition, this criterion for success remains the same for Stage B. This is also problematic because this is a three-stimuli task, and therefore the chance of reaching 75% becomes more difficult. The threshold should have therefore been scaled down for these sessions.

Only a single monkey progressed from Stage A to B in Experiment 1, and because of the above it is not convincing that this was not due to chance. However, setting success criteria this way is seen a lot throughout the literature, so I think it would be harsh to overly-penalise the paper for this approach. However, I do think the authors need to highlight the caution surrounding the possibility for type 2 errors in these methods.


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: SQUIRREL MONKEY RESPONSES TO INFORMATION FROM SOCIAL DEMONSTRATION AND INDIVIDUAL EXPLORATION USING TOUCHSCREEN AND OBJECT CHOICE TASKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I find the introduction to be much improved with clearer explanations of the problem that the authors are investigating and inclusion of more background literature which provides context for the aims of the present study. Specific terminology has been explained more clearly for the reader.
Experimental design: The methodology used has now been explained in more detail and I believe could be replicated based on this description.
Validity of the findings: R code has been uploaded and problem with raw data resolved.

L356 - the significance of the binomial test and the figure of 56% as above chance seem odd...is it the case that small differences will lead to significant binomial tests when the N are so high (above 2000)?
Additional comments: Abstract: You have added the line, “Both touchscreen and physical object choice tasks appear to be valid methods to study learning in squirrel monkeys, but this population did not master the contingencies in these tasks.” – perhaps it would be better to say that there appeared to be no advantage to one method over the other in the current study

L86 – I would remove “for example”

L92 I would switch “how much” with “to what extent”

In the methods I think you could just make extra clear that T3-T5 were also rewarded (if correct), as the term Information Trial for T1 initially made me question whether the following trials were rewarded (if correct stimuli chosen)

L541 - Did the monkey have to touch the cup to count as a choice of extend his/her hand through the appropriate hole in the plexiglass?

L645 – I assume that this data included only Stage A, but perhaps make this clear.

Overall I find the manuscript to be much clearer in terms of aims, its relevance to our current understanding of social learning research and the detail of its methodology and analyses.


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: CORRECTION OF ESTIMATION BIAS OF PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS OF ENERGY EXPENDITURE BASED ON WRIST/WAIST-MOUNTED ACCELEROMETERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall the English language needs great improvement to ensure an understanding from a wide audience. Below is an extensive list of suggestions.

Abstract

-	Line 31 – Last sentence needs clarity. Specifically, need definition for EHG (or just say ‘hip’?).
o	May be improved by stating that by using multiple regression using VM’s, BW and HRR, accuracy of energy expenditure estimation was greatly improved compared to traditional formula (provide the R2 and ICC of original and modified models)

Introduction

-	Line 41 to 44 – revise this. Consider words to the effect of “Regular exercise is a cost-effective and efficient method of promoting and maintaining physical health and performance. Additionally, high levels of physical activity are closely related to decreasing the risk and mortality rates of chronic diseases.”
-	 Line 45 to 48 – used the word ‘technology’ twice and the sentence is difficult to read. Sentence that starts “making obesity..” does not make sense.
-	Line 48 – revise this. Consider words to the effect of “Obesity has a detrimental impact on human health, it is now widely recognised that regular exercise and increased physical fitness is important…”
-	Line 51 to 52 – Change ‘amounts’ to ‘volumes’. Remove the full stop after ‘intensities’ and decapitalise the ‘To’.
-	Line 52 – revise this. Consider words to the effect of “it is recommended that treatment plans include regular assessments of physical activity as part of the healthcare system”
-	Line 57 – after ‘adipose tissues’, add ‘, respectively’, this indicates to the reader the respective implication of insufficient or excessive intake of nutrients.
-	Line 57 – revise this. Consider words to the effect of “This may also have significant implication for one’s cardiovascular system, endocrine system……
-	Line 59 – revise this. “The gold standard methods of quantifying the EE and intensity and of physical activity are DLW and indirect calorimetry”
-	Line 62 to 63 – revise. “nevertheless, these methods are not always practical or feasible due to the site requirements and installation costs”
-	Line 67. Change “must-have” to “popular”.
-	Line 69. Change to “the development of EE estimation formulas has relied…”
-	Line 75 - revise this. Consider words to the effect of “due to its convenience and ability to provide good EE estimation values”
-	Line 77 – change to “..devices worn closer to the bodies centre of mass…”
-	Line 79 – can you provide more information? What activities have been shown to be less accurate (i.e. resistance exercise? Cycling? Etc..)
-	Line 84. Define ‘HR’ on first use.
-	Line 87. Change to “Therefore, some researchers have used HR to modify…”
-	Line 91 – provide the reference for you previous study
-	Line 91 to 94 – revise. Consider words to the effect of “Due to this, we hypothesise that accuracy of EE estimation from wrist- and waist-worn accelerometers will be improved by applying a HRR correction.
-	Line 84 – Used the word ‘formula’ twice, consider changing.
-	Line 96 – You have previously stated that wrist accelerometers can provide good estimates of EE (line 75), and in this line you are stating that they cannot estimate EE accurately. Consider revising this and making the narrative consistent.

Materials and methods

Study Design

-	Line 101. Make clearer what methods were used for EE measurement / estimation and what was used for HR monitoring.
-	Line 102. What is ‘general adults’? Perhaps changes to ‘healthy adults’.

Subjects

-	Line 112. Remove ‘These’ and just begin the sentence with ‘Subjects’.
-	Line 115. Change ‘gave up before finishing’ to ‘withdrew before completion’
-	Table 1
o	Change ‘weight’ to ‘body mass’
Measurement of EE…..
-	Line 120. Change ‘In the..’ to ‘Regarding the…’
-	Line 126 to 127. Revise this as does not flow well. Consider words to the effect of ‘ Regarding the accelerometer method, the ActiGraph GT9X-Link (ActiGraph Corporation, Pensacola, FL, USA) was used. This device measures accelerations across 3-axis and is small (3.5 cm x 3.5 cm x 1 cm) and lightweight (~14 g)’
-	Line 130. Remove ‘in this study’ and begin sentence with ‘The sampling frequency…’
-	Line 136. Define VO2.
-	Line 137. You have said that ‘counts for all tests will be simultaneously…’ This sentence is in a different tense. Suggest sticking to the past tense and change to ‘counts for all tests were simultaneously….’

Treadmill Test

-	Line 142. Remove ‘In the laboratory’ and begin sentence with ‘Subjects were…’
-	Line 145. Is maximum HR your safety range, if so why? Did you have any other safety considerations?

Data Analysis

-	Line 151. Change ‘and all Vmax…’ to ‘therefore all Vmax…’. Avoids the repetition of the word ‘and’
-	Line 152. Include ‘Microsoft Excel’ or ‘MS Excel’
-	Line 154. Revise this. Consider words to the effect of ‘The data processing followed the approach of Lynden et al. (2011) whereby the first 120 seconds and last 10 seconds of each speed were removed to ensure the participants were in a steady state’
-	Line 158. Define VCO2. before abbreviate

Statistical Analysis

-	Line 166. Revise this. Consider words to the effect of ‘In order to understand how device placements affected EE estimation across different speeds, and the difference between criterion measured EE (CMEE) and device measured EE, one-way ANOVA with Games-Howell post hoc test, Cohen’s d effect size (ES) and Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) were calculated accordingly.’
-	Line 170 – Remove ‘In this study,’ and begin sentence with ‘Linear regression was used…)
-	Line 171 - Revise this. Consider words to the effect of ‘Pearson’s coefficient of determination and Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to further evaluate the relationship and reliability of EE estimates, respectively.
-	Line 173. Move the sentence starting ‘The statistical software IBM…’ to the beginning of the statistical analysis section.

Results

-	Line 181. Change ‘(p < 0.000)’ to ‘(p < 0.001)’
o	And do this throughout (e.g Line 182)
-	Line 190. Remove ‘(R2) as it is repeated in the next bracket.
-	Line 193. Change ‘bigger’ to ‘greater’
-	Line 195. You have stated that this is a ‘high ICC’. Have you got a reference for this assessment of magnitude?
o	See the below reference for reporting guidelines for ICC
o	https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1556370716000158
o	Allows ease of interpretation. You can then say in the discussion that the ICC went from ‘moderate’ to ‘good’ when correcting for HRR.
-	Line 195 to 199. This may be better suited for the discussion. Results sections should just state the results.

Discussion

-	Line 203 to 204 – change ‘in the past’ to previously’
-	Line 204 to 206. Change this sentence to make it clearer what the key results were.
-	Line 213. Have you a reference for your previous study? If so, put it in there.
-	Line 227. You shouldn’t being a sentence with ‘Because’
-	Line 255. At the end of the sentence it says ‘E03r”, what is that?
Experimental design: Experimental design

Methods

Aside from some changes required to the grammar and flow, generally I think the method section is good, easy to follow and is designed appropriately to assess your research question. Likewise with the statistical analysis, it is easy to follow and easy to replicate.
You have stated that you have used ICC to assess the reliability of measurements. What is your justification for this? An assessment of reliability would usually be appropriate when administering the same test twice on the same individuals, and assessing the closeness in results from each device. In this study, is it not the validity that you are assessing?

-	Line 162. Regarding your HRR calculation, you have said that HRR = HRmax - HRrest and they refer to the difference for each phase of the test. To clarify, is the HRrest measurement the lowest recorded HR taken in the 3 minute break in between speeds? Or a pre-test measure of resting HR? Just needs a little bit more clarity.
Validity of the findings: Statistical analysis

-	Table 2

o	Would be better suited to provide Pearson’s correlation in this table?
	Could be worth providing the correlations for each individual speed? To provide a greater depth of information
o	As it stands it looks as if the MAPE is just for the 8.04 km/h speed as it is aligned with it
	As above, think it would be good to show the MAPE for each individual speed.

-	Games-Howell post hoc test was used. Does this mean your data were not normally distributed? If so, it may be worth saying that and stating briefly how you assessed the distribution.

-	Thank you for providing your data. Given the clarity in your methods section I was able to run the same analyses on your data set and came up with identical results for all but one test.
o	You have reported in table 4 that the r and ICC for the hip estimated EE Freedson model to be 0.624 and 0.612, respectively. In doing the same analysis I got an r and ICC of 0.885 and 0.868, respectively. Could you double check this?
	This may have implication for your discussion as this would mean that the addition of HRR to the equation for hip estimated EE only improves the model in a minor way (r and ICC of modified model is 0.897 and 0.889, respectively).
Additional comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review this work. Although I think the article needs significant work regarding how it is written and structured, of which I have gone through and made specific comments on, I believe the data is valuable and demonstrates the importance of collecting further physiological information in order to improve the accuracy of energy expenditure estimation from accelerometers. Generally I think the statistical analysis is good and methods easy to follow. I have included some comments on some minor changes which may improve the manuscript for publication. Furthermore, when analysing your data following the same process as you have stated I found slightly different results regarding the hip worn estimates, I have made further comments on this below.


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: CORRECTION OF ESTIMATION BIAS OF PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS OF ENERGY EXPENDITURE BASED ON WRIST/WAIST-MOUNTED ACCELEROMETERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Introduction
Para 1, line 41: ‘Doing regular and correct exercise…’ – what is correct exercise? Do you mean perhaps mean appropriately prescribed exercise or similar?
Para 1, line 41: ‘Doing regular and correct exercise is one of the cheaper and efficient way…’ Cheaper compared to what? Perhaps modify to ….’a cheap and efficient way….
Para 1, line 42: ‘Not only have its benefits…’ – suggest you modify to ‘Not only has exercise’s benefits…
Para 1, line 47: ‘Making obesity is one…..’ – suggest you modify to ‘Associated with this has been an increase in obesity rates across westernised countries (insert reference)’  or similar.
Para 1, line 51-52: “To increase….exercise’ – suggest deleting this sentence.
Para 2, line 55: “From the aspect of weight management’ – suggest you change to ‘From the aspect of body weight management’
Para 2, line 60: Suggest replace ‘metabolic cart’ with ‘indirect calorimetry’. Also, a heat-exchange chamber (direct calorimetry) is actually the ‘gold standard’ for measuring EE.
Para 2, line 60: ….can quantify the intensity and EE of all types…. – suggest you modify to …..can quantify the rate and total EE…..
Para 2, line 62: ‘Nevertheless, because of their….can afford them.’ – suggest you modify to ‘ ..because of the costs and technical expertise required for these techniques these methods are not commonly accessible (in community settings?)’ or similar
Para 2, line 63: Suggest replacing ‘optimization’ with ‘improvement’.
Para 2, line 68: Who is a ‘general user’? Do you mean general population?
Para 2, line 68: Suggest replacing ‘conducting’ with ‘undertaking’
Para 4, line 92: ‘we hypothesis’ – change to ‘we hypothesised’
Para 4, line 94: Modify what EE estimation formula? Please be specific.
Materials & Methods
Line 102: Suggest replacing ‘adopted’ with ‘used’
Line 102: What is a general adult?
Line 115: ‘…specified speed or gave up before finishing)’ – do you mean ‘terminated prior to completion of the test’?
Line 124: Suggest changing ‘amount or air….of O2 and CO2.’ to ‘volume and composition of inspired and expired air’ or similar.
Line 127: Suggest delete ‘activities’
Line 137: Replace ‘will be’ with ‘were’
Line 171: “weight’ – do you mean body weight?
Results
Line 189: as per above.
Line 190: What is a ‘rather small’ SE – Try to avoid subjective descriptions. Was is small, trivial, moderate, etc., etc.?
Line 193: …were ‘bigger’ than those – suggest replacing with ‘larger’
Lines 196-199: ‘From the aforesaid results…….worn on the wrist’ – suggest condensing these two sentences to ‘Including HRR not only improved the reliability and…….worn on the wrist’.
Discussion
Line 205: ‘…provided higher EE estimate than…. - the CMEE is not an estimate, it was measured via indirect calorimetry?
Line 209: ‘Bias’ of the wrist position? Do you mean error associated with the wrist position?
Line 211-213: “if the approach ….accuracy of EE’ – suggest simplifying this message to ‘If wrist-mounted monitoring is adopted, it will affect not only EE estimates but potentially also health and/or fitness outcomes for the user’ or similar.
Lines 213-214: Insert reference.
Line 215: ‘were also added to the estimation formula’ – what formula? Please be specific with this detail.
Line 221: Suggest replacing exercise with activity.
Line 223: Suggest deleting ‘obviously’
Line 224: Suggesting changing ‘In our study’ to “In the current study’
Line 225: Suggest deleting ‘obviously’
Line 226: Suggest changing ‘there was a big difference in ES..’ to ‘there was a large ES…’
Line 227-233: I am not entirely clear on the message(s) in these two sentences. Perhaps it is just me but I feel that the clarity can be improved.
Line 234: What is a ‘non-indirect calorimeter  approach’ – do you mean an alternative to indirect calorimetry?
Line 236: ‘As the waist is the location……’ – compared to what? Closer to the COM compared to wrist-mounted devices?
Line 238: Edit ‘Researches’ – do you mean ‘researchers’?
Line 239: ‘….than are more close to reality’ – do you simply mean waist-mounted devices can provide more valid (and/or reliable) estimates of EE?
Line 244: Suggest replacing ‘misjudged’ with ‘misclassified’
Line 245-247: ‘Therefore, when the EE……into consideration.’ – Is it absolutely necessary? Is there evidence to indicate this is always necessary? What is movement detection technology improves? Or are you suggesting based on the results of the current investigation that the addition of physiological data can improve accelerometer-derived estimates of EE?
Lines 247-248: Suggest changing ‘All physical activities are driven by antagonism of skeletal muscle…’ to ‘All physical activity involves muscle contraction, which has an energy cost.’ or similar.
Line 255: What is E03r? Suggest this should be deleted?
Line261: Suggest replacing ‘solicited’ with ‘recruited’
Line 263: Suggest replacing ’metabolic carts’ with ‘indirect calorimetry’
Line 264: What do you mean by ‘provide reliability as high as the standard measurement results’? what is the standard measurement?
Line 276: What do you mean by’ …make the estimate close to the actual value’ – do you mean improve the estimate of exercise intensity?
Line 280: Suggest changing ‘…..exercise or training process’ to ‘physical activity or exercise’.
Lines 281-282: Suggest modifying this sentence ‘To maintain….are identical’ – it reads as though there are two themes being addressed. You could consider deleting ‘To maintain the energy balance and monitor the training amount’, and Begin the sentence with ‘A key factor in enhancing training outcomes is ensuring …’
Line 284: ‘issues’ do you mean tissue?
Line 284: Insert “an’ after ‘affect’
Lines 285-286: ‘…but also create……and growth retardation’  - these are two more extreme examples of inadequate energy intake, perhaps you could simply say ‘but also have a negative impact on health’ or similar.
Lines 288-290: HRR can better estimate EE compare to what?
Conclusions
Line 293: What ‘current EE estimation formula’?
Line 296: ….’better modify’…. – do you mean improve?
Line 301-302: Suggest changing  ‘…..and even more convincing….’ to a more objective statement (e.g. more accurate and reliable).
Experimental design: The study appears to be well controlled, with a good sample size. However, it is questionable as to whether participants reached a 'steady state' after 2 min for subsequent expired air and HR analysis over the final 60 s of each speed.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Wearables devices, and their subsequent application to health and physical fitness monitoring in the general population is becoming increasingly popular. Despite this popularity, there is a relative dearth of empirical data to support many of these devices or the application of the measures (e.g. EE prediction from accelerometry). This manuscript can play a role in improving our understanding of the validity (and limitations) of current device types (i.e. wrist-mounted accelerometers), and potentially help to inform future improvements. Some improvements in the language and clarity of the message would greatly improve the manuscript, which would no doubt be of interest to many readers.


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: CORRECTION OF ESTIMATION BIAS OF PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS OF ENERGY EXPENDITURE BASED ON WRIST/WAIST-MOUNTED ACCELEROMETERS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic reporting
The grammar and language used in this revised manuscript is much improved on the previous version. Below is some minor suggestions.
Abstract
Line 25. Capitalise ‘Indirect’ at the beginning of the methods section. Change ‘calorimeter’ to ‘calorimetry’
Line 33. Revise this as sounds a little confusing. Consider words to the effect of. ‘Modified models explained a greater proportion of variance (R2: wrist = 0.802; waist = 0.805) and demonstrated a good ICC …..).
Line 37. Remove the comma after HRR
Line 38. Remove ‘and’
Introduction
Line 61. Consider this. ‘Typical measurement methods of quantifying the EE and intensity of physical activity are doubly labelled water (DLW) and indirect calorimetry’
Line 66. Consider this. ‘… it is now easier to estimate EE and exercise intensity’
Line 67. Try to avoid starting sentences with ‘Because’. Change to ‘As’
Line 71. Consider this. ‘.. EE estimation equations has largely relied on..’
Line 84. Remove the comma after worldwide.
Line 88. Change ‘Because of this’ to ‘Therefore, some researchers….’
Materials and methods
Line 106. Remove ‘, and’ and insert a full stop ‘…C106056). All participants…’
Line 173. Remove ‘Then the’ and begin sentence with ‘Validity’
Results
No changes required
Discussion
Line 206/207. Consider this. ‘…HRR parameters significantly improved the….’
Line 209. Remove ‘did’
Line 287. Consider revising this, along the lines of. ‘A key factor in enhancing training outcomes is ensuring individuals have an adequate energy balance, that is, energy intake and EE are matched’
-	Although I don’t think you mean that, energy intake and expenditure do not need to be ‘identical’ to enhance the training process.
Experimental design: Satisfied with the revisions and explanation
Validity of the findings: Satisfied with the revisions and explanation
Additional comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review this version of the manuscript. This article is much improved and the writing style and structure will enable an easier interpretation for readers. As mentioned previously, I believe this is a good paper which employs suitable methods to answer the research question. I have included some very minor changes regarding the use of language/grammar.


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: GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN AND TIMING OF COLONIZATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST OF NORTH AMERICA BY THE ROCKY SHORE GASTROPOD LITTORINA SITKANA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No major comment.
I have made some minor comments listed among general comments below.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: This is a neat study showing clear evidence for a recent expansion and colonization of the eastern coast of North Pacific by a western North Pacific rocky shore snail. The problem is well presented and the data consistently supports the conclusion. I think it is also a nice contribution since it highlights the problem of understanding population genetic patterns without considering the demographic history of a species. In this particular case, it was for a long time confusing that despite poor dispersal (in the absence of a planktonic larval stage) this species did not show large differentiation among populations.

I have only minor comments that the authors might like to consider to improve clarity of argumentation.

Title: Maybe add "the Pacific coast of North America" to be a bit more precise.

Abstract. First sentence if a bit technical. I would suggest raising already here the point that the demographic history of a species may play a fundamental role in shaping contemporary population genetic structure.
The same argument may go also for the Introduction, where a couple of more conceptually directed sentences would be good before getting into the technical details of mtDNA as a tool for phylogeography.

Line 76. Here we use "additional samples" - it is not really clear what samples already existed. I guess it would be easier to leave these details to the Materials and Methods section. This said, there is of course the need to explain in what way the current manuscript takes us beyond what Azuma et al. 2017 already concluded, so the rest of this paragraph is really crucial.

Line 159. It is not completely clear to me why this 72hours intervals were done. Was it in order to be able to evaluate convergence of starting conditions? Or was it some more practical reason?

Table 1. Can number of snails sequenced also be indicated in this table?

Fig. 1. In Scenario 2, PET and JUN have shifted affiliations (NEP - NWP). (In general, figures are nice and illustrative.)

Lines 228-231 and Fig. 2 and Figs. 3-5. There is no explanation for the colours used to indicate haplotypes but I guess blue is for all haplotypes only found in NWP and black is for those only found in NEP while green are found in both areas. I can see the point in this simplification of the illustration, but at the same time this does not really give the impression of the higher number of haplotypes in the NWP area, and what is completely lost is the information of the distribution of these haplotypes. Is it possible to use different colours for haplotypes and then overlaying, different rasters for the two main areas?

Fig. 5. The pattern for this gene is a bit surprising - that is, that the most common haplotype is no longer present in 3 of 4 NWP sites. Of course, it looks like this also because this haplotype is so strongly represented in NEP. Is the green haplotype the most common one in the PET population?

Line 233. This sentence is a bit contradictory - in particular, as you cannot see from the figures how many haplotypes are present in the different NWP sites.

Line 238 (Table S2). N values are indicated here, but I think these can also be indicated in Table 1. In addition, many of the supplement tables lack a heading or appropriate description. Although much is evident, I think a short description, for example, indicating what bold figures means, should follow with each supplement table.

Line 242. I think there is a word missing somewhere.

Line 250. In Tables S6-S9, boldface letters show comparisons NEP and NWP and not if Fst are significant or not while in earlier tables bold face meant (I think) significance. There is furthermore no description of what stars means (but probably significance). It would be appropriate with Table headings for all tables!

Line 263. Effective population sizes are estimated from models and shown to differ considerably between NEP and NWP populations. Still this result is not brought up in the Discussion.

Fig. 8. Colours in C) do not match colours in A).

Line 318. The role of the PET population is a bit hard to appreciate. Do you here mean that the bottleneck appeared before PET was established? I think I am confused about the "but" in the middle of the sentence. Is not a bottleneck compatible with PET being rather isolated from the rest of the NWP and all NEP derived from an initial migration from PET to NEP?

Line 426. Remove one of the two "for"


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: GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN AND TIMING OF COLONIZATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST OF NORTH AMERICA BY THE ROCKY SHORE GASTROPOD LITTORINA SITKANA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript was tight and well-written. Sufficient context was provided. Results were relevant to hypotheses.
Experimental design: Research question was well defined, and the investigation and analyses were performed rigorously. A key piece of information was missing though: the mutation rate used to convert the model parameters to years and population sizes.
Validity of the findings: Findings will be valid once uncertainty in mutation rate is addressed.
Additional comments: ## Summary

This is tight and well-executed study of divergence in an amphi-Pacific periwinkle *Littorina sitkana*. The authors obtain DNA sequence from mitocondrial cytochrome B and 3 nuclear loci, and then use divergence modeling in full likelihood and approximate Bayesian contexts to demonstrate convincingly that the Northeast Pacific populations of this species were colonized from the Northwest Pacific between ~4K and 108K years ago.

Overall I enjoyed reading this paper. I found the methods to be rigorous and the discussion and conclusions to follow nicely from the presented results. I commend the authors on doing some "old-school" Sanger sequencing and making careful and robust inferences based on a handful of loci, rather than struggling with >10K loci of unknown provenance available from RAD-seq. I even picked up some tips that I intend to apply within my own research.

## Major Comments

My only major concern is with the mutation rate used to translate model parameters into units of time and population size. The authors don't present the mutation rate that they used, referring to a 23 year old book of David Reid's as their source and describing it as a fossil calibration. This lack of transparency makes me nervous. The authors are clearly aware of Simon Ho's time-dependency hypothesis, which has a lot of support. Depending on what rate they actually used, the true rate could be 2 to 5 times greater than that, with inferred times of divergence therefore decreasing by the same magnitude. The authors acknowledge this in their discussion, but I'd like to see a more complete discussion of how uncertainty in the mutation rate might impact their inference. I refer them to my own work on time dependency, which suggests that the decrease in apparent rate over time is especially steep in marine invertebrates (Crandall et al. 2012; although there is a typo in the rate slope in that paper; see the corrigendum)

## Specific Comments

L54 Of course a selective sweep is a third possibility for low diversity
L95 Gastropods can be difficult to preserve because they close up their operculum. How were these samples preserved?
L130 What criterion was used within ModelTest?
L167 What was this rate? Please say more about how it was estimated.
L261 It would be helpful to refer to Table 2 and Figure 6 at the beginning of this paragraph
Figures 2-5 - Could the sample size in either individuals or haplotypes be added within or next to each population pie chart?
Figure 8 - The colors for q8 and q9 are reversed in plate a and c
Supplemental Tables - It would be nice if each table of summary statistics was labeled with the marker it is describing. Similarly for PhiST tables. Are these tables showing FST or PhiST? The text suggests PhiST, but the download button says FST

## Literature Cited

Crandall ED, Sbrocco EJ, DeBoer TS, Barber PH, Carpenter KE. 2012. Expansion Dating: Calibrating Molecular Clocks in Marine Species from Expansions onto the Sunda Shelf Following the Last Glacial Maximum. Mol Biol Evol 29:707–719.


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL INFORMATION FROM LIVE DEMONSTRATORS COMPARED TO VIDEO PLAYBACK ON BLUE TIT FORAGING DECISIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The text is clearly written, in an unambiguous and professional English. The results are relevant to the hypotheses. The paper is relevant for scholars designing experiments with blue tits (and other similar models), in that it reports the difficulties of obtaining social learning of foraging choices in this species. I think that this paper could also stimulate future attempts to tackle this issue, taking advantage of the results reported here, by developing alternative methodologies on the basis of this experience. For example, it is clearly of great importance to carefully select the landmarks associated with the feeding positions in order to avoid the development of idiosyncratic preferences. Moreover, the information provided by this work helps to clarify the interpretation of previous results, which showed that video playbacks failed to influence foraging decisions. Based on the result of the current paper, it seems unlikely that this was due to the use of video playbacks, suggesting that social learning about food sources might be absent or at least difficult to demonstrate in this species.
The introduction gives sufficient background for the studies, and the relevant literature is adequately represented in the references. However, it could be interesting to mention also the literature on birds’ perception of video animations, in addition to the studies using video playbacks. In fact, there are a number of studies showing that at least young domestic chicks can attribute a social valence to simple animations showing point light displays of biological motion, or even 2D shapes characterised by animate motion features.
Raw data have been shared as supplementary materials. The article is well structured, with clear and informative figures.
Experimental design: This paper represents a piece of original primary research, based on a research question that is well defined, relevant and meaningful in the light of the field literature. Given the importance of video playback experiments for research on social cognition and social learning, it is important to assess how the use of video stimuli affects social learning in this model species. The use of a control group exposed to live conspecifics makes the research more methodologically sound, allowing to exclude possible confounds and alternative explanations. This is particularly important in the present case, since the results did not reflect the initial expectations and could be otherwise particularly difficult to interpret.
This is overall a rigorous investigation performed to the highest standard, whose methods are for most parts described to a sufficient detail to allow replication, with few exceptions (see below).
Validity of the findings: Underlying data have been satisfactorily provided as supplementary materials. Overall the methods and the analysis are statistically sound and well controlled. The conclusions are clear and are directly supported by the results.
Additional comments: Overall there is not much to comment or correct, in the present paper. As testified also in the supplementary information provided, this manuscript has already been the object of a very rigorous and detailed reviewing, bringing it to a very high standard. Most of the weaknesses have already been addressed, corrected or discussed. I have only a few comments that I report here below, in order of importance.

I was wondering if the authors could record also the number of total choices emitted for each well, in addition to the first choice. This is relevant because, even after the lid covering each well has been removed, the “correct” well could still be identified based on its position and the symbol presented in the front of the tray. Total choices are sometimes more sensitive a measure than first choice, and could reveal underlying social learning effects not detectable based on the first choice only.

I find the title to be potentially misleading. I recognise that it states the original question that motivated the paper, but it does not reflect the main finding the results actually provided (blue tits’ low tendency to rely on social information for foraging, regardless of the format of the presentation, live or through video). I suggest that the Authors could rephrase the title to better reflect that?

I would suggest to add some information on the procedure used to restrict access to the food at lines 152-153 (some information about this is provided at lines 217-219). Specifically, could the authors provide some estimation of the level of food motivation caused by the 1h deprivation in this species? Is this a severe or moderate level of deprivation, considering the metabolic needs of this species? The amount of food deprivation can affect the animals’ motivation and attention to social information; in my experience, if an animal is too food motivated it will not pay attention to social information, being too focused on food itself.

Could the authors provide the videos used as stimuli (e.g. in the supplementary materials)?