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: CONTACT TOXICITY OF THREE INSECTICIDES FOR USE IN TIER I PESTICIDE RISK ASSESSMENTS WITH MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA (HYMENOPTERA: MEGACHILIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See general comments to the author.
Experimental design: See general comments to the author.
Validity of the findings: See general comments to the author.
Additional comments: The revision is acceptable. I have two minor points:
1) "sp." and "spp." should not be italicized.
2) In my original review, I asked "How is the hazard quotient dimensionless when the units do not cancel?" The authors responded by stating, "Hazard quotients are not usually presented with dimensions and we have presented our data following this trend (e.g., see EFSA, 2012). HQ is also referred to without units in the Europe EU directive 91/414 in reference to honey bee pesticide risk assessment." It's not sufficient justification for the authors of this paper to state that "hazard quotients are not usually presented with dimensions and we have presented our data following this trend." Hazard quotients, risk quotients, and hazard indices are dimensionless because the units cancel. If the units don't cancel, presenting these ratios as dimensionless doesn't mean anything. If EFSA (2012) provides a rationale for why these are presented as dimensionless even when the units don't cancel, then the authors need to explain that. Is it possible that the EFSA is in error? The authors need to thoroughly investigate this.


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: CONTACT TOXICITY OF THREE INSECTICIDES FOR USE IN TIER I PESTICIDE RISK ASSESSMENTS WITH MEGACHILE ROTUNDATA (HYMENOPTERA: MEGACHILIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: All points raised in my review were adequately addressed
Experimental design: All points raised in my review were adequately addressed
Validity of the findings: All points raised in my review were adequately addressed
Additional comments: All points raised in my review were adequately addressed


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: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE MULTI-GROUP ETHNIC IDENTITY MEASURE (MEIM) IN A SAMPLE OF IRANIAN YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript consists of a report on the factor structure and correlates of the MEIM in an Iranian sample. As the MEIM is a widely used measure of ethnic identity, it is certainly valuable to assess its psychometric properties in a wide variety of samples. In this sense, the manuscript makes a useful contribution.

There are, however, several issues that weaken that contribution, as elaborated below.

The Introduction could be tightened up considerably and focused on the issue at hand. For example, the discussion of the three-stage model of ethnic identity is not only rather outdated, but it has little bearing on the current investigation. The rationale for this study is rather straight-forward and can be communicated quickly to readers.

There were two major problems with the Introduction. First, related to my previous point the Introduction does not rely on the latest research and thinking. For example, the Ethnic/Racial Identity Study Group published four useful papers in Child Development in 2014 covering conceptual and methodological issues, as well as a meta-analysis (COI: I was part of that group and an author on those papers). Additionally, there is quite a bit of psychometric work with the MEIM, including two papers by Yap et al. (2014, 2016) and a reliability generalization paper by Herrington et al. (2016). All of this aforementioned literature is more central to the current study than what was actually included.

The second major issue is that there was insufficient attention paid to the fact that there are  multiple versions of the MEIM. In the authors’ review of past work, they do not attend to  which studies relied on each version. This is important because the original version described in Phinney (1992) was 14 items and tends to have a three-factor structure, whereas the Roberts at al. (1999) revision, which is the one used in this paper, has 12 items and tends to have two factors. There is also the 6-item Phinney & Ong (2007) version. At the beginning of the Discussion section the authors mention inconsistencies in the past literature, but they do not recognize that they are comparing different scales, not to mention that most others did not compare multiple models and/or they only relied on EFAs not CFAs. In sum, there is quite a lot of psychometric work on the MEIM in the literature, yet the current study scantly references that work nor does it use it to guide the current investigation.

The focus on gender was unclear and under-theorized. By and large past research has not found many gender differences and there is not a compelling reason for why we would observe them.

With regard to relations to well-being there are meta-analyses on the topic that should be discussed (Smith & Silva, 2011; Rivas-Drake et al., 2014).

The raw data that were submitted only included the 12 items of the MEIM and not any data for the correlates.

In Table 1, some data appear to be missing (the upper bound of the RMSEA interval; the df for the models). Moreover, it seems like something is not right if the orthogonal model and oblique model have the same CFI, given the substantial correlation between the two.

What errors were correlated and why? Just because of modification indices? What meaning does this have?

Why is N only 205 for the correlations with well-being? Are those manifest scale scores and not latent variables? Why not use the latent variables identified through the factor analysis?
Experimental design: The authors reported that the sample included four ethnic groups. It seems like conducting invariance testing across the four groups would be useful vis-à-vis the goals of the study.

The test-retest sample seems quite small, and in the text focuses on total score (although the table also included the subscales). I wonder about the generalizability of this finding given the nature of the sample (That said, my knowledge of how this scale operates is consistent with this finding).

The authors use MANOVAs to test for gender differences, apparently only as a gatekeeper F to testing the univariate effects. As described by Huberty & Morris (1989) this is not a proper use of MANOVA. If Type 1 error is a concern then the proper action would be an alpha correction.
Validity of the findings: Overall I think the data are useful and important to get out there, but that the manuscript needs quite a bit of work. I am also left wondering what the authors recommend in terms of using this scale in an Iranian sample. Must it be used in latent space with the hierarchical model? This is where my earlier question about the correlates comes in; those were (best I could tell) correlations based on manifest variables. What would they look like using the latent variables?
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: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE MULTI-GROUP ETHNIC IDENTITY MEASURE (MEIM) IN A SAMPLE OF IRANIAN YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This article documents a substantial forward advance in the study of identity formation, in particular, ethnic identity formation.  The adaptation of Phinney's construct and measures for translation into Persian, along with the validation of the measure's essential factor structure, bring forward a new tool that will be useful for the study of identity development in groups which have previously been excluded.  The need for the study was persuasively articulated.

The number of references for the article (and the number of in-text citations) is a bit excessive, and this makes the writing somewhat cumbersome at times.  I suggest that the authors review their in-text citations and try to eliminate two or more pages of references (particularly old references, unless they are to seminal studies). Where a recent paper builds upon previous studies, it is the only one that needs to be cited and referenced.
Experimental design: The research question and problem were well defined.  The sample size was adequate for testing the factor structure of the measure.  Appropriate steps were taken for the translation of the measure.  The design and report of the factor analysis were clear.
Validity of the findings: Implications of the study were outlined and appropriate conclusions were drawn.
Additional comments: This study represents important work.  I encourage the authors to continue to build upon this advance in order to study identity development in heretofore unstudied populations.


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: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE MULTI-GROUP ETHNIC IDENTITY MEASURE (MEIM) IN A SAMPLE OF IRANIAN YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I felt this study would have benefited from better organization of the introduction to reflect the objectives addressed by the paper, and to focus in on the key constructs addressed in the paper. I appreciate that there is a wide range of literature covered and the authors were comprehensive in their writing, but narrowing it down would help make the focus of the paper more clear.

In the methods section, there are some inconsistencies in the reporting on the number of participants. There doesn't appear to be a mention of the total number of participants approached for the study in order to arrive at the final sample - no response rate is provided. It is also unclear if the twenty-four forms excluded from the study were done so by participant request or reviewer decision (two different explanations are provided in the methods section).  The section on measures also included some information that would be better suited to the introduction.

The reporting in the results section was clear and comprehensive.

There are some areas where the writing could be strengthened, usually with small grammatical errors such as use of plural when the term is singular.  This is primarily seen in the discussion section.

I have made notes in the manuscript with specific comments or suggestions when warranted.
Experimental design: The research question is well-defined and the investigation as described was rigorous. The only aspect I am unable to judge at the moment is the quality of the process for recruitment of participants, as more information is needed on how recruitment was carried out, the rate of participation, and the reason for the excluded responses. See my comments in lines 264-271.
Validity of the findings: Though the conclusion as written is linked to the original question, I would have liked to see additional discussion of the interpretation of the results (as the current focus now is primarily on a summary/overview of results). One area for discussion may be how these results are related to the Iranian context. The authors make some comments (e.g., that gender differences may relate to cultural expectations; that the MEIM is particularly well-suited to multiethnic populations such as that found in Iran) that would benefit from some additional discussion, as they appear very relevant to the stated goals of the article and would be a useful contribution.
Additional comments: This is an overall strong study that would benefit from streamlining the introduction, addition of relevant material on recruitment in the methods section, and further contextualizing the results 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: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE MULTI-GROUP ETHNIC IDENTITY MEASURE (MEIM) IN A SAMPLE OF IRANIAN YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is somewhat difficult to read, possibly because English is not the first language for the authors; at a minimum, the authors should run the entire paper through spell-checking (e.g., Phinney's name is misspelled in one instance) with grammar checking enabled.  In terms of literature references, given that Phinney's entire program of research is based upon Erik Erikson's ego psychology, the authors need to read Erikson directly and include one or more citations of his theory at the beginning of the paper (Erikson writes about identity in general, as well as ethnic identity in particular); near the end of the paper, it would be useful for the authors to acknowledge that Phinney and colleagues currently recommend the 6-item Revised MEIM (Phinney & Ong, 2007), rather than the older version that the authors have used.
Experimental design: The research question is fairly well-defined (i.e., Can the two-factor pattern of the 12-item MEIM be replicated in a sample of Iranian men and women), although the analyses do not quite match the question (see additional comments under Validity of the Findings, below).
Validity of the findings: Based upon the Introduction, I would have expected the authors to run two versions of a multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (with gender as the group):  (1) Two-factor solution, constrained to be equal across genders; followed by (2) two-factor solution, allowed to vary across groups -- not the series of analyses that apparently were intended as a step-by-step comparison of various models that Roberts et al. (1999) had conducted.  Also, the rationale for using weighted least squares (WLS) estimation is questionable; in the absence of stronger evidence for non-normality at the univariate level (e.g., skewness as well as kurtosis with an absolute value of 2.30 or higher; see Lei & Lomax, 2005) and at the multivariate level (e.g., relative multivariate kurtosis of 1.96 or higher), I would suggest using the default (i.e., maximum likelihood) extraction.
Additional comments: I believe that this paper deserves further consideration.  However, I do not believe that the current version should be published.  Although I am aware that the authors have addressed previous reviewers' comments, I thought that I should let the authors know about examples of criticism that they may encounter, in the event that the paper is published.  Overall, I would be interested in reviewing a substantially revised version of this manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE MULTI-GROUP ETHNIC IDENTITY MEASURE (MEIM) IN A SAMPLE OF IRANIAN YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In my view major parts are to be entirely revised as argumented below.

-	The introduction focuses on adolescence rather than emerging/established adults.
-	The whole text needs careful revision for language and style (too long paragraphs etc.) and be more concise on main topics (identity, MEIM, well-being and gender by convincing what is novel, why the need for this study and describe well the local context). What do we know about these topics in Iran, what studies and relevance? Why the need of this work in Iran?
-	More recent references as many are too old (2008, 1992 etc.)
-	Ethnic identity different definitions do not review these and one may wonder why these are needed?
Experimental design: -	I have a major issue with the large age range that needs a justification and split (emerging adults or established adults).
-	I similar major concern for the methods and analytic steps. I would strongly advise to introduce measurement invariance for gender and longitudinal testing as mean differences cannot be compared in absence of scalar invariance. Then, a model linking identity and well-being in a path model using SEM is needed.
Validity of the findings: I would advise to run more sophisticated analyses and make a stronger contribution both conceptually and methodologically.
Additional comments: -	Why Table 1 reports other MEIM studies? Is this a review paper?
-	Why Table 2 reports indices for single item and not for MEIM factors and gender?
-	The figure needs to be drawn from scratch rather than a copy from an output and added one for gender.


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: BEHAVIORAL DOMINANCE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NICROPHORUS ORBICOLLIS AND N. TOMENTOSUS BURYING BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: SILPHIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: see below
Experimental design: see below
Validity of the findings: see below
Additional comments: Manuscript #53206 examines contest competition between individuals of two species of burying beetles that have a competitive size asymmetry. The experimental design is straightforward and easy to interpret and the English is understandable. The literature was covered very nicely. Most of my comments are relatively minor.

A primary question I had was why use body mass for the size variable rather than another body size measure. The methods indicate that length and width were measured but these measures are never mentioned again (if not used, why mention them at all)? Body mass in burying beetles is known to be quite variable as a beetle under short-term starvation can increase body mass by 10% during one active period of feeding. Length and width measures are not so variable. Was body mass used because width of a body part, such as the the pronotum, may not accurately indicate relative size across different species with different body proportions? If so, this could be mentioned. I also thought it unusual to weigh body mass after the experiment. Dominance interactions can influence access to the carcass, and hence alter feeding and weight gain that might have occurred after dominance was determined.

There is some speculation in the last paragraph of the manuscript on what affects body size evolution in burying beetles. Competition is a natural explanation. Two large species, however, N. marginatus and N. carolinus, are found in habitats where there is almost no interspecific competition and perhaps limited intraspecific competition (open habitats generally do not have as large of beetle populations as wooded habitats). Both species, however, bury carcasses very deeply and larger body size may be important to achieve this (whether they bury deeply to avoid competition or to reach a depth where there are not elevated daytime temperatures is unclear). This is another possible trade-off. A primary trade-off that I think should be mentioned is that smaller species can raise greater numbers of young for a given carcass size.

The introduction focuses on the trade-off of size and environmental tolerance, but I do not see how breeding at the end of the season constrains body mass in this group (is the end of the season considered a poor nutritional environment?). Body size is determined by feeding as a larva so I do not see that fly competition would affect body since beetles breeding on a small carcass generally do so only if fly eggs and larvae are killed. Body size is determined by the parental decision on how many young to raise on a given sized resource so this trait should be flexible and selected by factors such as competition, digging ability, reserves needed to survive overwintering, flight abilities, etc. Do other species of burying beetles that breed late in the year and overwinter as prepupae (Europe, Asia) have smaller body size, on average? If so, this may be a clue.

I agree that the smaller N. tomentosus can avoid some competition with orbicollis by breeding later in the season but, as I see it, the constraint here is that you can only breed for 3-4 weeks instead of 10 weeks.

L. 62-64. Of the 7 species of Nicrophorus in Ontario, N. pustulatus has not been confirmed as a breeder on small vertebrate carcasses in the field, as far as I know.

L. 103/ L. 336/ L. 340. In some cases, the overwintering stage of N. tomentosus is given as “larva” whereas in others it is “prepupa”. I suggest a consistent terminology (I prefer prepupa as larvae may imply the feeding stage).

L. 105. Overwintering as a larva is not unique to N. tomentosus. In North America, N. investigator and N. hybridus do so, as well as additional species in Eurasia. There is also at least one species that facultatively overwinters in a pre-adult stage.

L. 142. Why are the sunset times given in reverse chronological order?

L. 156. I have not seen a scale correction for measurements of animal mass in a methods section. Were different scales used? With the considerable environmental variation in body mass (see above), measuring to 0.001 g seems unnecessary.

L.235. Is a “two-vector variable” common terminology? Does this just mean that both aggressive and non-aggressive interactions were used in separate analyses of won/loss? Or were the two measures combined to determine won/loss?

The explanatory variable, species identity, might be better tested when beetles of different species are matched for size. With no cases of similar-sized opponents, this variable was likely difficult to analyze, with limited statistical power. The results do confirm, however, that this variable is not of major importance and that size is very important.

The results also confirm that arrival time (at least over periods of hours) is not an important determinant of contest outcome. Once larvae have been on the carcass for a couple of days, smaller residents can sometimes keep larger intruders off the carcass, presumably because of differences in motivation of resident and intruder at that stage.

With a sample of 13, there is likely not enough data to look at the effects of other variables. But was there any indication that sex is an important variable? Were the findings similar for male pairs and female pairs? Did male-male contests have fewer overall aggressive interactions?

Was there an appearance of a date effect? If N. orbicollis stopped breeding on September 7th, perhaps some N. orbicollis during the latter part of the study were less motivated to contest for a carcass.


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: BEHAVIORAL DOMINANCE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NICROPHORUS ORBICOLLIS AND N. TOMENTOSUS BURYING BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: SILPHIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors use clear and unambiguous, professional English. The article is professionaly structured. I suggest to add some background information and references (see general comments).
Experimental design: See general comments
Validity of the findings: See general comments
Additional comments: The authors present an interesting study that investigates behavioural dominance interactions between two burying beetle species co-occurring in the same habitat. Burying beetles reproduce on dead vertebrates and have been shown to compete intra- as well as interspecifically for the limited resource. The study video-recorded behavioural interactions of the two species for 13 hours and tested whether body size, species identity or time of arrival are the best predictor of behavioural dominance. The authors found that large body size determined the outcome, whereas species identity or the order of arrival did not predict behavioural dominance.

The manuscript is clearly and well written. Despite the wealth of knowledge about the behaviour of burying beetles, our understanding of interspecific interactions is still little and therefore, the current study is interesting and timely. You will see below that I miss some background information and references and I also have some questions and comments to the experimental design.

1.	I suggest mentioning that burying beetles engage in pre- and post-hatching care. This is relevant, as the beetles continue to defend the carcass until the offspring disperse. There is a nice review of Eggert and Müller 1997 about the natural history and behaviour of burying beetles (“Biparental care and social evolution in burying beetles: Lessons from the larder”).

2.	Burying beetles do usually try to monopolize a carcass, however, they also have been shown to engage in cooperative breeding and inta- and interspecific brood parasitism. Especially interspecific brood parasitism should be mentioned in the manuscript (e.g. Trumbo 1994). N. tomentosus might have the ability to successfully parasite N.orbicollis broods.

3.	Line 74-77: not only the seasonal activity pattern, but also the daily activity pattern can explain species coexistence. As a matter of fact, since N. tomentosus is diurnal and N. orbicollis nocturnal, they search for carcasses at different times and might not regularly compete for carrion resources.

4.	 Line 108: readers might not necessarily understand what is meant by carcass preparation; furthermore, neither Otronen nor Pukowski have studied N. orbicollis or N. tomentosus. There are many other studies you could cite. E.g. studies of Trumbo, Scott or Creighton. Steiger et al 2012 and Pettinger et al 2011 (both published in Behavioral Ecology) also examined dominance behaviour in N. orbicollis. In fact, the first study found that body size was a very good predictor of dominance.

5.	Line 126: Some of the beetles were kept for more than a week. Since age might have an effect on the fighting ability (due to senescence) or on the investment in fights (due to terminal investment), it should be mentioned how long individuals of both species have been housed outdoors before the start of the experiment. Possible species difference in the time they have been maintained might have affected the results. A similar problem arises due to the fact that they have been fed every 7 days. The nutritional state likely affects fighting abilities (see e.g. Richardson et al. 2020). Beetles that were kept more than a week were fed ground beef. But what about beetles that were kept less than a week? A beetle caught in field that had been kept six days without any nutrition might not have the strength to engage in fights (or vice versa might fight vigorously for the possession of a carcass).

6.	Line 140: why was the trials run overnight and not during the day? Since N. orbicollis is nocturnal and N. tomentosus diurnal, this might have biased the outcome of the interactions.

7.	 Line 151: what is meant by 14 trials? If 7 males and 7 females were involved, there were only 7 trials? I thought pairs of beetles consisted of the same sex? But then, the number of males and females must be even. Was there any effect of sex? E.g. did one sex fight less? Experiments by Dressel (1987), Bartlett (1988) and Bartlett and Ashworth (1988) have shown that conspecific males do not fight vigorously on carcasses unless a female is present.

8.	Line 178 what is meant by “retained [..] its physical condition”?

9.	Perhaps I missed something. For body size you used body weight, but not pronotum size?

10.	Line 214-217: Priority effects: since both beetles were introduced at the same time, the time difference in carcass discovery cannot be large. How much was the time difference?

11.	General comment to the methods: I was wondering why you did not look at the reproductive outcome (in the case of females). It would have been nice to see whether interactions led to a complete exclusion of another individual from the carcass or whether individuals of both species produced eggs and had offspring on the same cadaver.

12.	Line 316: there is a lot of literature about chemical and acoustic communication in burying beetles (e.g. Chemnitz et al. 2015 Proc R Soc; Keppner et al. 2017 J Chem Ecol; Steiger et al. 2007 Proc R Soc; Engel et al. 2016 Nature Com; Engel et al. 2019 Chemoecology; Hall et al 2013 Annals Entomol Soc Am). Pukowski did not examined any potential olfactory cues.

13.	Line 340-352: Be aware that larger is not always better. Smaller species have the advantage that they can use smaller carcasses for reproduction (e.g. N. vespilloides can reproduce on carcasses with a weight of 2g; N. orbicollis won’t be able to use such small resources). Even if they used carcasses of similar size, N. tomentosus might produce smaller, but a higher number of offspring. N. americanus is the largest species in North America, but endangered, which illustrates that a large body size is not necessarily the best strategy.


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: BEHAVIORAL DOMINANCE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NICROPHORUS ORBICOLLIS AND N. TOMENTOSUS BURYING BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: SILPHIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This article shows that body size is the key to the success in inter-specific competition and the use of carcasses. Also, the probability of winning the contest over carcasses is independent of who arrives at the carcass first. The article is simple and the conclusion is clear. Although I have read the article several times, (surprisingly) I don't have any suggestions for the author to revise.


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: BEHAVIORAL DOMINANCE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN NICROPHORUS ORBICOLLIS AND N. TOMENTOSUS BURYING BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: SILPHIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have no further comments on the revised manuscript. The authors have addressed my concerns.
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: N/A
Additional comments: The revision was well done!


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

Input:
Title: A MODULARITY ANALYSIS HELPS IMPROVING THE STRUCTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is logically organized and well-written.  The information- and concept-dense text is made more accessible, and effectively summarized, by use of innovative graphics, such as the "periodic table" of elements of nomenclature.
Experimental design: The author makes clear the goals of this analysis of the content and organization of the Code, as well as the analytical methods used to assess both its current structure and the potential benefits of a different organization.  A difficult, dense subject matter is presented very well by virtue of how the analysis was approached and presented.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are stated well, as are the implications for the results of the study.  Methods are made clear and data appropriately summarized.
Additional comments: This is the first comprehensive reexamination of the structure and conceptual content of the zoological code.  The Code is understandably regarded as a "dry" subject; a bunch of rules, regulations, and recommendations that are necessary to maintain order in the ways in which species and higher taxa are named, but tolerated more than embraced as a conceptual framework for nomenclature and expression of taxonomic decisions.  Examining the Code through the lens of information science creates an exciting opportunity to reimagine its organization and structure.  As implied by the author, an "e-Code" in the future need not exist in a single, linear format, but could be accessed in more than one form by users.  The manuscript poses an implicit challenge to the next international congress on zoological nomenclature to take a serious look at how the ideas and provisions of the Code are organized, thought about, and accessed by users.  Negative aspects of the competing PhyloCode have been well documented and should have made it dead on arrival.  The PhyloCode would arrogantly impose contemporary ideas about phylogenetic relationships upon future generations, undermining intellectual freedom and making names immutable monuments to the hubris of the current generation; in this ill-conceived PC code, names become conceptually rigid constructs, dramatically differing from the flexible names in the current Code that have proven their ability to keep pace with the growth of taxonomic thought.  One (silly) reason the PhyloCode has any traction at all (and it should have none for anyone concerned about the testing and growth of scientific ideas about species and taxa, or with the humility to accept that we cannot foresee theoretical developments that may come about in the future) is the false perception that the existing Code, by virtue of its pre-phylogenetic origins and age, is somehow not up to meeting contemporary needs.  In addition, the Code looks cobbled together because it has grown in fits and starts through periodic modifications and edits.  This paper approaches the Code and its concepts objectively, with fresh eyes, and offers an interesting opportunity to make it more purposefully structured, accessible and flexibly organized to meet user needs.  The Code serves zoology extremely well and should be tweaked, improved and built upon to meet community needs, not replaced.  This manuscript prescribes one way to approach this challenge.  Impacts of this paper may well be to shape the agenda of the next congress, to reimagine how the Code is presented and used in electronic form, and to change the perception of the Code by seeing it as a dynamic network of ideas for organizing knowledge of biological diversity.  The Commission boldly embraced electronic publication of new species and nomenclatural acts; it is time to think of the Code itself in a more flexibly organized electronic form.  I am not yet certain of all the implications of this analysis of the conceptual content of the Code, or the extent to which I agree with its conclusions, but I am sure that the time has come to breath new life into the Code by making it more easily accessed and understood.


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

Input:
Title: A MODULARITY ANALYSIS HELPS IMPROVING THE STRUCTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There are quite a number of errors in the use of English throughout the text.
Experimental design: I am sure the author has conducted the analysis correctly.

I am much less certain that the article is of any interest to readers of PeerJ. While the Code is definitely in need of reform, I am not sure that this article, published publicly, will help that reform process significantly (see below).
Validity of the findings: As stated above, I am not convinced that the publication of this article will help the process of reforming the Code. I think that such a specialised analysis could be presented to the writers of the next version of the Code, but I fail to see that it could be of any interest to anyone else - I may be wrong of course.

The analyses of the 9 "modules" is unlikely to be of interest to more than a small number of individuals globally, and the general recommendations could be presented directly to the Commission, who I am sure would take them into consideration when amending or re-writing the Code.
Additional comments: I am not convinced that the publication of this article will help the process of reforming the Code. I think that such a specialised analysis could be presented to the writers of the next version of the Code, but I fail to see that it could be of any interest to anyone else - I may be wrong of course.

The analyses of the 9 "modules" is unlikely to be of interest to more than a small number of individuals globally, and the general recommendations could be presented directly to the Commission, who I am sure would take them into consideration when amending or re-writing the Code.


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

Input:
Title: A MODULARITY ANALYSIS HELPS IMPROVING THE STRUCTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Well-written, clearly presented.
Experimental design: Good design, interesting methods.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions well stated, looking forward to test some of these hypotheses and implement the suggested changes in the Code.
Additional comments: Work towards the Fifth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature by is currently taking place. The information submitted for publication by Dr. Vlachos is well-written and provides a different approach to look at, and improve, the contents of the current edition of the Code. As a member of the editorial committee working on the Fifth Edition of the Code, I will be looking forward to using data in the published version of this manuscript to test some of the hypotheses proposed therein. Note that there will be a period for community input regarding suggested changes by our editorial committee and it will be important to hear from all users regarding how the next edition of the Code could be structured in order to enhance comprehension and usage for all users (including students and beginners). Overall a very positive contribution.


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: KNEE REPLACEMENT OUTCOME PREDICTED BY PHYSIOTHERAPISTS: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is mostly well-written to a professional standard, suggestions for rephrasing have been commented on in the manuscript.

There are several statements in the introduction and background that need to be rephrased, or better supported by referenced evidence, comments can be found in the manuscript.

Of particular note, could the author's please provide a rationale in the introduction that enhanced or intensive rehabilitation results in superior patient outcomes following KA.
Experimental design: Although the research question was well defined, it's clinical relevance was not. As per the comments above and in the manuscript, an evidence-based rationale for predicting those who will not reach treatment success at 12 months and providing intensive rehabilitation to lower that rate has not been established.

Methods: please define the exclusion criteria with sufficient detail to be reproducible. See comment in the manuscript regarding clarifying the process for determining cognitive status.
Validity of the findings: Please see specific comments within manuscript regarding the need for greater explanation for statements made, with the use of examples. Statements such as 'other types of information' or 'other sources of information' need examples to aid reader understanding.
Additional comments: The authors presented an interesting research question and the data obtained underwent robust statistical analysis.

However, the rationale for the relevance of this study has been poorly referenced, there are many statements that either need rephrasing or the addition of supporting references.

Secondly, the reporting of an AUC of 0.62 as being 'acceptable' needs referenced evidence to support this, as it may inflate the reporting of the performance of the model in the results.


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

Input:
Title: KNEE REPLACEMENT OUTCOME PREDICTED BY PHYSIOTHERAPISTS: A PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The report was written in a well structured and easy to read manner. There was appropriate terminology on the whole. The authors use the hunch in the introduction, and although I understand what they mean, I think that this term could be replaced.
In the introduction, and in some respect the discussion there was a lack of referencing. In particular, the introduction form lines 50-63 had no supporting evidence. There have been several studies into predicting outcome after knee arthroplasty that could have been referred to. I am unaware of studies in other field of medicine that may have looked into clinician predictive capabilities with outcome - this would have been good to incorporate to support the rationale (if such studies exist).
Table 2 was unclear - it presented mean and SD of outmeasures but the table title indicated least square means and group differences. This needs to be clarified. Figures require titles.
Raw data was shared.
Results and discussion reflect the hypothesis and the authors indicate that the predictive value should be used in conjunction with additional measures.
Experimental design: Original an interesting question that clinicians will find relevant. The research question was define and, as men toned above, could be supported further with evidence. There is a gap in this knowledge that the authors aim to address, but whether the results have further impact on defining groups that may not be successful is some thing for further studies and could be alluded to writhing the discussion.
Ethical approval was obtained and researchers state that the physiotherapists predicting the outcome had no input to the rehabilitation following discharge.
Methods - clarify if total KA. The determination of a "successful" KA is potentially a contentious one. A high OKS does not necessarily indicate success for the patient and the single PASS question Yes / No requires some further justification over other satisfaction scales.
Validity of the findings: The authors present the findings appropriately and do not negate any negative findings. The discussion points highlighted my initial concerns that the patients have a high predictive outcome by the physiotherapist and whether the cohort reflects that of all orthopaedic units. Therefore, comorbidity information would be beneficial for readers to understand the complexity of cases - more complex case are naturally more difficult to predict. A more heterogenous sample might strengthen the predictive modelling.
Conclusion represents study findings.
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: MCQ-BALANCE: A METHOD TO MONITOR PATIENTS WITH BALANCE DISORDERS AND IMPROVE CLINICAL INTERPRETATION OF POSTUROGRAPHY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written. English is clear. References are properly cited. Figures and tables are well organized. The collection of the data are provided in detail.
Ethical approval and patient consent in the original Spanish language were also made available as supplemental files.

In the introduction, I suggest you organize the rationale of the proposed method according to the sequence of the three stages of the MCQ-balance assessment you choose.
Experimental design: You aim to evaluate the effectiveness of your proposed 3 stages assessment method by comparing with the results of clinicians’ performance in discerning the altered BSS and assessing its progression. The research objective is well defined. The experimental design is original. The results are relevant and meaningful. It provides clinically interpretable and objective information.
Validity of the findings: This study has some degree of novelty in terms of the method proposed to facilitate monitoring patient balance and providing information that could improve clinical decision making. The comparison between the MCQ-Balance assessment and the evaluation of the clinician is well presented. The data are robust, statistically sound, and well-controlled.
Additional comments: I commend the authors for the extensive data set, well-designed figures, and tables.


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: MCQ-BALANCE: A METHOD TO MONITOR PATIENTS WITH BALANCE DISORDERS AND IMPROVE CLINICAL INTERPRETATION OF POSTUROGRAPHY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a poorly written manuscript. The authors have limited concepts on static posturography, vestibular control of posture, and research.  The paper has signs of ignorance. Authors do not know even the literature on the subject. Finally, their English language is too poor for scientific paper.
Experimental design: Very poor! The authors' selection of posturographic metrics is unacceptable. They should also know that the results of static posturography are strongly biased by subjects' age and comparisons with a 1-month period between "pre" and "post" have no sense is such a diverse group.
Validity of the findings: None.
Additional comments: The Authors should start their scientific adventure with fundamentals of static posturography e.g., Reymakers et al. 2004 or Blaszczyk 2016. Simple comparisons of unreliable parameters do not make any sense.


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: MCQ-BALANCE: A METHOD TO MONITOR PATIENTS WITH BALANCE DISORDERS AND IMPROVE CLINICAL INTERPRETATION OF POSTUROGRAPHY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment- but the introduction was rather too long
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Overall
This study is conducted to test the reliability of MCQ-balance test to quantify the progress of patient with vertigo symptoms which was usually assessed by the Clinician. The study found that MCQ-balance has high accuracy and reliable with clinical judgement as the reference.  The research team did a good work on simplifying the outcome of postrography test which is usually huge.

Introduction
The introduction was rather long, I would suggest the author to make it more concise and highlight more on the importance of having a more objective measure.
In the (first paragraph), author was focusing on the harm of vertigo on Older people. But the sample was in the age range of 35 to 70 with mean 50+ years old. Perhaps Author should emphasize the impact of vertigo on the young adult population as well.
Please be consistent to use abbreviation for centre of pressure (COP)line 92 or (CoP) line 213

Method
The methodology was technically sound

Results
TABLE 2: This study did not compare between peripheral deficit and central deficit groups, thus I cannot see the rationale to describe the participants according to their type of deficit. Can just describe them as a whole and add row to report on their type of deficit

Discussion
Author should discuss the limitation of the usage of this technique in economy angle as well, knowing that not all hospital or healthcare provider can afford to buy proper posturography machine especially in low and middle income countries.
Conclusion
In the conclusion authors should add their recommendation to automate the scoring system by incorporating Artificial intelligence/machine learning technology


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: MCQ-BALANCE: A METHOD TO MONITOR PATIENTS WITH BALANCE DISORDERS AND IMPROVE CLINICAL INTERPRETATION OF POSTUROGRAPHY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written correctly but should be written in a more direct language. Use shorter sentences and thus be able to reduce the number of words in the article and facilitate understanding.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Experimental design: Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question needs to be defined in a more concrete way, if the situation arises from which researchers consider necessary an equilibrium exploration in an objective way but must define their research question and hypothesis.
Rigorous research carried out with a high technical and ethical standard.
Methods described in sufficient detail and information to replicate. They only need to be more specific in their explanation.
Validity of the findings: The results are solid in demonstrating the ability to establish an equilibrium pressure platform assessment that can be used clinically to assess equilibrium status and progression. It is a novel aspect. Although the amount of data required seems to put a negative point on its actual use in the clinic.
Adequate references that justify the knowledge on which the research is based.
The conclusions are well established, linked to the original research question. But they need to be more concise and concrete and a better wording.
Additional comments: Dear authors;
The manuscript is written correctly but should be written in a more direct language. Use shorter sentences and thus be able to reduce the number of words in the article and facilitate understanding.
The research is interesting but it must modify to include certain important information and reduce secondary information.
Abstract
Subheadings are missing as indicated in the journal authors instructions (background, material and methods reuslts and conclusion.
Line 26. Delete “and of this group”. Better simple phrases. Put point after episode and add 20% of them do not recive ...Where are the keywords? And abbreviations?
Introducción
Line 69-71. It should better explain whether the alteration of balance due to cervialgia is of central origin or not, or this consideration depends on the criteria of different authors.
Line 75 to 81. This paragraph is thus summarized and clarified by saying that the equilibrium system can be altered by one or in combination of the three systems BBS VS and ES AND PS. A simple trauma can affect them, so protocolize an initial evaluation and progression method is necessary.
Line 83 to 89. Explain in fewer words.
Line 91 to 127. Explain the positive and negative aspects of posturology with fewer words.
Line 128 to 135. Explain this paragraph in fewer sentences.
Line 136 to 148. Explain the reason why the MCQ-Balance is chosen, if it is the best in what sense with respect to the negative aspects of the use of the posturology that you have listed. Do not explain the protocol or the number of subjects, you will do so in material and methods. Explain the purpose of the study, and the hypothesis.
Material and Methods
Line 152. Subheading name “Participants” better than participants and ethic statement.
Line 153. Eliminate “in the present work.”
How many men and women formed the sample? Of what ages and demographic characteristics? Cite table 2 but show it at results section.
Lines 153 to 167. Is possible reduce the words?
Explain the reason to select heterogeneous patients with central or peripheral origin or diagnosis method of vertigo. If you think it could be a limitation include this in a discussion section please.
Lines 177 to 179. Is important to th research these tests? Explain or delete.
Lines 181 to 185. Why have you select these exclusion criteria? Could you add a reference that uses them? Why do you not excluded auditive deficits or chirurgical process in the last 1 year?
Lines 186 to 198 must be explained at material and methods.
Lines 199 to 202. Explain if they follow the Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights and the Declaration of Helsinki criteria. If so add the reference.
Is this study registered in clinical trials? Contribution number of said registry.
Provide the calculation of the sample size to justify that the data obtained with said sample are sufficient to carry out said investigation and include it in this section.
Subheading Instrumentation, better to separate it from protocol and variables
Line 209 and 210. Write down main quality characteristics, for example number of sensors per area and total recording area. Indicate a reference where there is a reliability study of the platform if it exists and if it does not exist indicate it.
Line 212-2014 This part of the data processing is more indicated to name later.
Line 216 to 234. Reduce the sentences to give this information.

Subheading Portocol
Line 234 to 268: explain the protocol that was carried out after the subjects signed the consent, briefly and concisely in chronological order.
Also explain what instructions were given to the subjects. IF the process was explained to them or not, if they performed any tests to familiarize themselves with the procedure, if the order of the foam rubber conditions was randomized, etc. Was only one record made for each condition? Because the MCQ-Balance assessment method was followed and no other.
Were the subjects told to position their feet in a certain way as shown in figure 1? As in other platform balance studies like this one? If the answer is, do not justify the reason. If so, explain in addition to showing the figure and attach reference.
Martínez-Jiménez E, Losa-Iglesias M, Díaz-Velázquez J, Becerro-De-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Palomo López P, Calvo-Lobo C, et al. Acute Effects of Intermittent Versus Continuous Bilateral Ankle Plantar Flexor Static Stretching on Postural Sway and Plantar Pressures: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Clin Med [Internet]. 2019 Jan 7 [cited 2019 Jan 27];8(1):52. Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/8/1/52
Explain why it was compared with the clinical criterion in the last phase and not with a more objective criterion such as the Balance Assessment Systems (BESTest) test? Justify that the functional assessment made by the clinician is adequate. What clinical tests were performed? Were they reliable?
Padgett PK, Jacobs JV, Kasser SL. Is the BESTest at its best? A suggested brief version based on interrater reliability, validity, internal consistency, and theoretical construct. Phys Ther 012;92: 1197-207.
Lines 272 to 389 reduce the number of words in this section as much as possible.
Define each variable and the units of measurement used briefly and concisely.
Explain here if any variable is more relevant than another according to the reference studies.
Line 399 How much experience did the clinician have performing this task?
Line 402 Explain first the tests that were carried out for the assessment by the clinician and then the 3 categories.
Create a subheading statistical analysis
Lines 416 to 418 should not be in this section. Include in statistical analysis
Lines 421 to 425 Insert references in these statements.
Results
Line 428. This phrase is not required. Correct the next sentence on line 429 when removing it
Discussion
It is an excessively long section, try to reduce the words expressing the same information
Lines 478 to 480. Summarize in a general way your results in one sentence and then say if you have served the purpose of the study with these results. Don't explain the MCQ balance method again.
What do you think of the reliability obtained, could it be improved? Infer and speculate making it clear that it is a belief and not a statement.
In your opinion, infer the determining study variable.
Please, presents possibilities or inferences to be able to systematize its performance in the clinic, infer in possible future investigations.
Line 556 This is a study limitation that should be reflected at the end of the discussion. Another is age, which was not delimited in the sample and is directly related to balance, include the limitations you consider and name them as such. Don't you think that precision is lost when converting continuous quantitative variables into qualitative ones?
Lines 563 to 573 explain it in fewer words, name it without depth.
Conclusions
Please 3 or 4 sentences only without data without percentages or data, only the statement we arrived at with the research.
Tables. Improve the legend that explains the data represented in the tables and the format.


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: MCQ-BALANCE: A METHOD TO MONITOR PATIENTS WITH BALANCE DISORDERS AND IMPROVE CLINICAL INTERPRETATION OF POSTUROGRAPHY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction section was improved with concepts of etymology and posturography being clarified, which is better than the first version.
Experimental design: The authors have performed a sample size calculation to justify their data. This is noted in the section of Material and Methods.
Validity of the findings: New references were included to better support their findings. The study remains robust and statistically sound.
Additional comments: Overall, this version of the manuscript is significantly better than the previous one.


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: MCQ-BALANCE: A METHOD TO MONITOR PATIENTS WITH BALANCE DISORDERS AND IMPROVE CLINICAL INTERPRETATION OF POSTUROGRAPHY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Table 1, please add percentage after each frequency
Table 2, Please spell out BMI and add unit for BMI
Experimental design: No issue
Validity of the findings: The results are valid
Additional comments: The authors have made necessary amendments.


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: MCQ-BALANCE: A METHOD TO MONITOR PATIENTS WITH BALANCE DISORDERS AND IMPROVE CLINICAL INTERPRETATION OF POSTUROGRAPHY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written correctly.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Experimental design: Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
The research question has been well defined and the reason why it is necessary is specified.
Rigorous research carried out with a high technical and ethical standard.
The proper use of the instrument and its reliability with the iCC and SEM study is justified
Validity of the findings: 3. Validity of the Findings
The results are appropriate to the conclusions obtained and the research question asked
Adequate references that justify the knowledge on which the research is based.
Additional comments: Dear authors;
The manuscript has improved its writing quality and is more concise. Some items can still be improved
Introducción
The introduction is very long, try to reduce it if possible.
Material and Methods
Try to put the exclusion and inclusion criteria in a more visible way, separate from the previous paragraph.
Please explain the instructions that the subjects were given to perform the test, where they were instructed to place their feet, etc.
Results
This section is correctly done
Discussion
This section is correctly done
Conclusions
Please retire line 549, it is not necessary to detail possible research futures in conclusions


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: REFINING THE MARINE REPTILE TURNOVER AT THE EARLY–MIDDLE JURASSIC TRANSITION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: As a not native speaker, I am not qualified to evaluate the English (grammar, spelling, etc). However, I would like to point out that it was very clear to read it all throughout. The structure of the article is correct and the figures and tables relevant, as well as literature cited (I only made some minor few suggestions, see below). The Introduction section provides a solid background and introduced properly to the main issue of the manuscript: the putative early Middle Jurassic marine herpetofaunas turn-over“. Despite being a major biotic event (especially for the understanding of the marine Mesozoic diversity) is poorly understood and also, somehow, overlooked. First pointed out by in the pioneer contributions of Massare (1987) and Bardet (1994), Aalenian-Bajocian interval was crucial for the re-organization of marine tetrapod communities however few (or almost none recent contributions) contributions deal with this topic. Within this framework this contribution is welcome. Marine reptiles from this interval are also scarce worldwide. Based on the detailed description of fossils from successive formations of a single sub-basin from Belgium-Luxembourg, the authors restrict the previously hypothesized turnover to the Aalenian. They also provide hypotheses on environmental changes that could have driven it. In this sense, this article will be of interest to paleontologists working on marine reptiles but, in a broader context, it will be useful to understand the evolution of marine ecosystems during the Mesozoic. Also interesting is that this article provides an interesting starting point for the further test outside de European basins to test if the early Middle Jurassic event was locally restricted or worldwide
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Comments and suggestions (also annotated on the pdf): on the Description section, I suggest indicating the specific part of the figure where the specimen is shown (e.g. Figure 6 A, B). This could help the reader particularly when two or more specimens are referred to in the same figure (e.g. figures 5-7, 10-11)
Line 717: I suggest including, as part of kimmeridgian ophthalmosaurids from North America, the recently described Acuetzpalin from Mexico (which it is not closely related to Baptanodon or Ophthalmosaurus). Barrientos Lara and Alvarado-Ortega (2020). Journal of South American Earth Sciences 98, 102456

Line 720: for the age of Baptanodon materials, see Massare et al. 2013. Geological Magazzine:1-16. I think that most of the materials referred to Baptanodon have been recovered from the Oxfordian of the Sundance Formation.

Line 738: Maybe it would be more useful (instead of Fernández, 1999) including the citation of Fernández & Taleli (2013)  as it is mentioned that during the early Bajocian in the paleogulf represented by the Neuquen Basin in Patagonia there were at least three different forms: Molllesaurus, Chacaicosaurs + "Temnodontosaurus-Suevoleviathan like form described originally as Stenopterygius grandis Cabrera, 1939 [CABRERA, A. 1939. Sobre un Nuevo ictiosaurio del Neuquén. Notas del Museo de La Plata 21, 485–91.].


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: REFINING THE MARINE REPTILE TURNOVER AT THE EARLY–MIDDLE JURASSIC TRANSITION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction/background section is through and literature is well referenced. I have noted some clarifications regarding the research question in the annotated pdf. Although present in the introduction the research question could be presented more clearly. The results tie in well with gap in knowledge highlighted.

The English used is at a high standard, I have limited corrections here (see pdf).

The structure, as far as I can tell conforms to the PeerJ standard as per the author guidelines. The figures are relevant, are of high quality and clearly annotated. Raw data is supplied.
Experimental design: The research is within the scope of the journal and believe it fits well with other articles published in PeerJ. The research question is present in the introduction, but could be presented more clearly. Use your clearly stated bulletin points in the conclusion to present your question(s) clearly in the introduction. They are present, but not as clearly defined as they could be. This research does fit a knowledge gap.

For description sections I have a few comments noted in the annotated PDF. There are a few characters that are used here, which are no longer regarded as diagnostic or have questionable validity. The laterally compressed tail vertebrae in thunnosaurian ichthyosaurs is one (see pdf) and the distal ridge on the propodial of Colymbosaurus is another.

For Colybosaurus I suggest that this feature is only valid for C. megadeirus as suggested in Roberts et al., 2017 (https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.2017.1278381). However this distal ridge can form during taphonomic compression, varies in ontogeny and should be used with care. You can use it for Colymbosaurus, but also add in the caveat that it may form during taphonomic compression and that its validity has been questioned.

Otherwise, the methods sections requires additional details to be added. Include the number of samples used for your analyses in this section. How were the vertebrae measured? Did you include all pbdb data available for your stated  groups? Which taxonomic level did you use? Did you check for mistakes or bias? Also where is the taxon information in your dataset (ie. Which occurrence belongs to which group?), this is not included in the provided dataset. Previously I have noticed that some of the timebins in pbdb have not be accurate and followed an older version of the geological timescale for older entries. I didn’t locate any mistakes when I checked this in your dataset, but might be worth double checking.
Validity of the findings: Underlying data is provided, although additional information is required as stated above. Conclusions are clearly stated, but require better linking to the introduction.

My speculations here are: I am not convinced that there is sufficent information to justify the vertebral analysis. This requires additional support and evidence from the literature. Ichthyosaur vertebrae vary to some degree in their ratios depending on where they are from in the vertebral column. Plesiosaurs even more so. If you more specific in comparing different regions of the skeleton ie: middle cervical centra for plesiosaurs of proximal caudals for ichthyosaurs it would make more sense to compare them. Right now, with this limited dataset, I am not sure if it strengthens your argument, or is even required.
Additional comments: I greatly enjoyed reviewing the manuscript titled “Refining the marine reptile turnover at the Early-Middle Jurassic transition, by Fisher et al. I suggest minor revisions prior to publication as additional information needs to be included in the introduction and methods sections, in addition to a few changes elsewhere in the manuscript. Otherwise an interesting and valuable article, highlighting a time-interval poorly known, but important for marine reptile evolution. I have submitted additional questions and comments in an annotated PDF.


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

Input:
Title: REFINING THE MARINE REPTILE TURNOVER AT THE EARLY–MIDDLE JURASSIC TRANSITION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I find this manuscript well-written, clear, unambiguous. The relevant literature is appropriately referenced, and the introduction, description and discussion are richly complimented with context.
I suggested some improvement for the figures and figure-referencing (see below and attached PDF).
Experimental design: All descriptions, comparisons are rigorous, valid, and clearly fills a well-defined knowledge gap. Methods and results are reported in details.
Validity of the findings: All results are robust. I particularly appreciated the attitude that the authors took when describing several specimens. I think that the authors did an exceptional work in their identifications and in supporting them, while at the same time they did not shy away from highlighting similarities with specific taxa.
Additional comments: Dear Authors and Editor,
This manuscript describes a series of fragmentary specimens (plesiosaurians and ichthyosaurians) from the Early-Middle Jurassic of Luxemburg and their implication for marine reptile evolution. This interval is poorly understood and is sandwiched between the well-known and iconic Lagerstatten of the Early and late Middle Jurassic. Interestingly the marine tetrapod fauna changed considerably during this interval. As thus any specimen found in between is bound to fill in a ~14 million year gap in marine reptile evolution. And this is exactly what the main achievement of this manuscript is.
I do appreciate the clear exposition, strong background and referencing of all relevant literature – except perhaps that some additional mention to the thalattosuchians found in the area would be welcome (but see the annotated PDF for further details).
The description and comparisons are nothing short but excellent. Arguably the strongest point of the manuscript: they are precise, complete and the identifications of all specimens are well supported by clear references to diagnostic features. In this regards I do appreciate that the authors adopted a cautious approach and referred the specimens to higher taxonomy ranks, but also did not refrain to point out similarities with genera and species.
The results from these sections are put in context in the discussion that I also found clear and particularly enjoyable. Once again thalattosuchians are hardly mentioned – and even though teleosauroids went through less dramatic changes, this is roughly the time when metriorhynchoids diversify and become fully pelagic. Of course the authors do not have evidence to add to this process, but when studying faunal turnover of this interval, this is an evolutionary event that should at very least be noted. Again, please refer to the annotated PDF for additional details.
While my opinion of the manuscript is largely positive there are a few issues that I would like to point out.
1. First and foremost the description and figures.
I find the figures and plate excellent. But there are serious problem in how they are organised and cited in the text.
Many different specimens are described in the manuscript and only some of them are figured. I understand that not all specimens can figured and that selection should be made. However, while I am ok for undiagnostic specimens to be left out of the plates, I thin think that specimens which have important diagnostic features should be all figured.
The figures and panels should appear in the order they are mentioned - this is not currently the case. For instance specimens in figure 8 are described before elements depicted in figure 7. This principle should also apply to sub-figure (e.g. elements depicted in figure 5A should be described before those in Figure 5B). Please make sure that all orders are respected.
Another element of confusion is that some specimen numbers are left out the figure caption. This made it very difficult to understand which description referred to which figure.
I the description section the only in-text reference of figures is a line after the systematics table, but as previously mentioned, not all described specimens are actually figured, which is very confusing in my opinion. While reading the specimen description I often looked for the figures but the lack of precise in-text figure references ( = reference to specific parts of the figures i.e. “Figure 3A-B”), and lack of clarity of what specimen is actually in the figures made it all very difficult.
I would like to suggest a couple of solution for these issues:
-	Many many more in-text references should be added. Please add in text figure reference (E.g. “Figure 5A”) when describing each element/specimen.
-	Also important, make also sure that the specimens are cited in the right order. For instance the specimens in Figure 5 are confusingly cited out of order. The angular in Fig5G-H is described after the quadrate Fig. 5I-K, which is described before the vertebrae (Fig AA-D). Please re-organise the figures/text so that the same specimen is depicted together, and they are described in order.
-	All figured specimens numbers should appear in figure captions (e.g. MNHNL DOU978 is not mention in the caption of Fig7).
-	I’d suggest to add in “boxes” representing the same taxon (or group) in figures that include multiple taxa (e.g. Fig. 7 include Rhomaleosauridae and sp. Microclidus; but also see Fig. 9, 10)
-	As mentioned, I do not expect all specimens to be illustrated. However it should be made clearer which one are and which are not. Adding a column to table 2 could help with this.
Please increase the font size in all figures: the smallest text is very very small (I’d say at least double it).
2. Quantitative study.
In support of their descriptions the authors add a quantitative analysis of the proportion of ichthyosaurian centra. The point of this section should be better explained in the method section.
I do appreciate the effort that the authors put to quantitatively prove their point, however, while the results confirm a reduction in disparity through the selected interval, I am not sure it really adds much to the manuscript. I think that the same point comes across nicely through the comparison of the ichthyosaur specimens. It is always nice seeing quantitative support to qualitative data, but in this case the centra-proportion analysis could be cut out of the manuscript without compromising or undermining the results. I leave this decision to the authors.
A series of minor comments and clarifications are included in the attached PDF.
Upon minor modifications, some clarification and addressing of the above mentioned issues (please also refer to PDF for more details), I consider this manuscript ready for publication.
I thank the Editor and Authors for the opportunity to review this manuscript and I look forward to seeing it brought to the next stages of publication.
If appropriate and allowed by PeerJ regulations, I will be happy to be privately contacted by the Authors for additional clarifications on my comments or general questions regarding this review.
Many thanks,
Davide Foffa
RCE 1851 Postdoctoral Fellow - National Museums Scotland
d.foffa@nms.ac.uk OR davidefoffa@gmail.com)


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: REFINING THE MARINE REPTILE TURNOVER AT THE EARLY–MIDDLE JURASSIC TRANSITION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The edited sections of the paper have a high standard of English, and I have found not grammatical or spelling errors.
The other reviewers have suggested additional literature which has been included, which strengthen the context.
The new layout for the figures is improved. I have one question about Figure 3C, where part of the image looks cut off. This should be checked before final submission.

I am satisfied with the changes to the introduction to tie up with the conclusion.
Experimental design: The research is within the scope of the journal and believe it fits well with other articles published in PeerJ. The changes to the introduction are sufficient and this paper clearly fills a knowledge gap.
My previous comments on the methods are taken into account and I see no further issue.
Validity of the findings: Underlying data is provided and sufficient explanation is given to allow replication. The conclusions are well stated and link to the introduction.
I think the removal of the vertebral analysis was well founded as it was not required to strengthen your argument.
Additional comments: All my comments and suggestions have been taken into consideration or included.
I have 3 suggestions/comments that I would recommend before publication:
Line 69 - Change "tempo" to "duration"
Line 221-222 - Be aware that propodials in Colymbosaurus megadeirus can be massive. Significantly larger than any other cryptoclidid. So this may not be best comparison.
Figure 3C - Make sure this image has not been cut.

As these are only suggestions and not hard changes, I am happy to accept this paper for publication.


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

Input:
Title: SENSING AND PROCESSING WHISKER DEFLECTIONS IN RODENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is easy to read.

The literature is not comprehensive which is an issue for a review article.

The article is structured appropriately.
Experimental design: This is a review article. If this was meant as a comprehensive review the authors seem to have missed some important papers.

No ethical or methodological issues.
Validity of the findings: not applicable
Additional comments: Burns and Rajan provide a review of the circuitry in the barrel cortex which receives inputs from the contralateral large mystacial vibrissae.
Overall the basic anatomy is well represented, but how this anatomy results in observed physiology, behavior, and responsiveness is missing. The review was a bit on the cursory side and has not broken much new ground.
Major points.
1.	The introduction argues for the importance of studying sensory systems in isolation do to its societal importance. Only general examples are provided, a specific case where a sensory modality is lost and how that leads to a problem is needed.
2.	When describing the non-cortical pathway of the whisker-to-barrel pathway some important details are wrong (whisker afferents do not synapse within the trigeminal ganglia) or glossed over (the organization of the ‘barrelletes’ within the brainstem and one sub area of PrV (caudalis) is omitted from Figure 1).
3.	There is some processing of the signal at the whisker (resonance, adaptive properties), follicle (transduction impacted by many things including the blood sinus), brainstem (there are local inter neurons and the neurons show adaptation) that ultimately impact higher order structures that need to be considered.
4.	VPm inputs also target infragranular layers which is not mentioned (Constantinople and Bruno 2013 among others)
5.	Feedback connections from S2 and M1 play important roles in S1 layers 2/3 and the impacted circuits are omitted (see Lee et al 2013)
6.	How the location of VPm inputs onto spiny stellate (on spines/distal dendrites) versus onto soma and proximal dendrites of FS cells explains cross(adjacent) whisker inhibition would be a good way to link circuits to physiology and then function (roughness discrimination) work of Simons and colleagues.
7.	The discussion of interneurons is a bit idiosyncratic and no attempt is made to synthesize, although table 1 is well done.
8.	Figure 1 should include arrows to indicate the direction of the connections.
9.	Recent work linking specific phenotypes of neurons to specific circuits related to whisker behavior is omitted (see Chen et al 2013, Chen et al 2016)
Minor comment
1.	The abstract just provides in essence a table of contents and does not provide any insight as to what the paper will be on
2.	Some of the citations within the paper include first names and these should be edited.


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: SENSING AND PROCESSING WHISKER DEFLECTIONS IN RODENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In reading this review, I believe that some parts are well-described while others are very superficial. In general, review of the microcircuitry within S1 by layer does contain a useful synthesis of previous research. However, the review fails to place this in a functional context. If that is beyond the scope of this review, then that needs to be clearly motivated in the introduction.

Motivation: I see two main motivations described in the introduction: Line 37: “how neurons connect and form networks to carry out computations” and Lines 39-40 “understanding the brain in health and in injury with a view to creating the basic neuroscience knowledge base for improving human health”. Neither of these topics is fully (or even partially for the second topic) developed in the review.

Based on the introduction I was expecting to see much more detail about how the circuitry enables specific computations and transformations. This was severely lacking, and where attempted, was done so without support (as detailed below).

The description of trigeminal structure was lacking. Historically there are descriptions of lemniscal, paralemniscal and extralemniscal pathways originating from brainstem. What kind of information is processed in each? This is critical to understanding the “computations” of this system.

Some aspects of figure 1 are confusing. Does the VPM core send inhibitory projections to NRT? VPM thalamic input to cortex doesn’t match the canonical pattern, is that on purpose? Cross-excitatory connections between NRT? Excitatory projection from NRT to cortex? Lack of lateral connections in LII/III?
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: My main concern with the validity of the review is that the authors make numerous bold statements about function, without any support. This includes:

97-98 “VPM and POm as distinct, specialised information streams relaying different types of information to cortex” What types of information? What is the evidence?

122-124 “This results in the cortex, specifically barrel cortex, receiving a partially filtered sensory signal and not the raw sensory signal itself.” How so filtered? What is the evidence?

153-154 “infra-granular layers typically show broader, mixed-strength tuning (indicating tuning to more precise, higher-order features, and possibly common to multiple whiskers” Is there any evidence for this?

273-274 “these connection patterns may ‘bind’ perceptual features in subnetworks of layer V pyramidal cells” Is there any evidence for this?

296-298 “intricate excitatory connection patterns from layer IV and thalamus, allows cells to be finely tuned to complex, higher-order features of sensory input” Is there any evidence for this?

431-433 “These encoding mechanisms are important for the healthy function not only of barrel cortex but also of the upstream areas which barrel cortex projects to, such as those responsible for functions such as cognition and motor coordination.” Is there any evidence for this?
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: SENSING AND PROCESSING WHISKER DEFLECTIONS IN RODENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised manuscript addresses my initial critiques, a little more care to remove the first name initials (e.g. E.L. White....) from some of the citations needs to be done - that did not impact content or readability.
Experimental design: Not applicable - review article
Validity of the findings: the review is logical and following revision highlights all the relevant points.
Additional comments: No further concerns - very minor revision on the citations and then acceptable


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

Input:
Title: COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOME ANALYSIS OF ROOTS, STEMS, AND LEAVES OF PUERARIA LOBATA (WILLD.) OHWI: IDENTIFICATION OF GENES INVOLVED IN ISOFLAVONOID BIOSYNTHESIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript needs professional editing, there are many grammatical errors.
Experimental design: If you have find some new isoflvones in  P. lobata by HPLC-MS?
Validity of the findings: The discussion part should be strenghrened.
Additional comments: 1、The introduction and discussion should be strengthened. I suggest the authors read and refer to paper mentioned the isofavonoid biosynthesis in P. lobata or Pueraria thomsonii Benth.
（1）Han R, Takahashi H, Nakamura M, Yoshimoto N, Suzuki H, Shibata D, Yamazaki M, Saito K: Transcriptomic landscape of Pueraria lobata demonstrates potential for phytochemical study. Front Plant Sci 2015, 6:426.
（2） He M, Yao Y, Li Y, Yang M, Wu B, Yu D: Comprehensive transcriptome analysis reveals genes potentially involved in isoflavone biosynthesis in Pueraria thomsonii Benth. PLoS One 2019, 14(6):e0217593.
（3）He X, Blount JW, Ge S, Tang Y, Dixon RA: A genomic approach to isoflavone biosynthesis in kudzu (Pueraria lobata). Planta 2011, 233(4):843-855.
（4）Wang X, Li S, Li J, Li C, Zhang Y: De novo transcriptome sequencing in Pueraria lobata to identify putative genes involved in isoflavones biosynthesis. Plant Cell Rep 2015, 34(5):733-743.
2biosynthesis.
3、 Co-expression analysis should be performed between TF and isofavonoid related structural genes to identify TF potentially involved in isofavonoid biosynthesis.
4、Line 150-155: In part of Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis, the gene ID is not necessary.
5、Line 78：the GPS information of the P. lobata should be added.


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

Input:
Title: COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOME ANALYSIS OF ROOTS, STEMS, AND LEAVES OF PUERARIA LOBATA (WILLD.) OHWI: IDENTIFICATION OF GENES INVOLVED IN ISOFLAVONOID BIOSYNTHESIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper by Wang et al. describes generation of transcriptome data from leaves, stems and roots of Pueraria lobata. They also check for presence of 8 isoflavonoids in these tissues.

1) The manuscript has some serious flaws. Most importantly, the sequencing data have not been deposited. They are not available as raw data, and no statement has been made in the manuscript that they will be deposited in a public database. I agree with the authors that the transcriptomes would be a valuable resource for gene mining, but not if it is not shared. Without depositing the sequencing data into a public database, this study contributes absolutely nothing to this scientific area.

2) The manuscript also appears to be prepared rather sloppy.
2.1) For one, the word "Isoflavonoid" is miss-spelled in the title and a few times in the article.
2.2) The reference list is a mess, with years, editions, etc missing from several references.
2.3) The writing is confusing, and especially the introduction confused me (lines 50-60) and would benefit from a re-writing. There are several places also in the other sections that would benefit from rewriting, but I will spend my time in going over these that could have been caught by the authors in proofreading.
2.4) lines 166 onwards: the amount of flavonoids is given as "mg/kg". Please specify per kg of what? Also, this is a strange unit, giving the amount as "mg/g fresh weight" if that is what it is, would be the norm.
2.5) lines 195-200: what tissues do these number correspond to?

3) The discussion should be improved to be a discussion, and not a repeat of the results.

4) The design of the figures is sub optimal.
4.1) Figure 2 does not work in its current form. the bars for leaf and stem are not visible. It is also not really needed, the three values are reported in the text and the figure adds no more value as it is now.
4.2) Figure 3a has a bad choice of color. It is already close to impossible for a non-color-blind person to read. Please consider use of colors that are distinguishable also for color blind people. This is valid also for the other figures.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. The methods are described with sufficient detail.

I have a few comments to the experimental part of the paper.
1) qPCR uses three technical replicates. These should be biological replicates, otherwise the error bars just represent the authors pipetting skills.
Validity of the findings: 1) Without the sequencing data deposited, it is impossible to determine the validity of the findings from the transcriptome experiment.

There are a few other concerns as well.
2) Line 170: "total isoflavonoid content". This is not total, but a sum of the 8 ones that were quantified.

3) The validation of the RNA-seq data using qRT-PCR (lines 238-245 and figure 7)
The qPCR should use biological replicates instead of technical. The authors conclude that "expression levels ... were all consistent between" qPCR and RNA-Seq, but this is only true for 6 out of the 9 genes analyzed by qPCR.

4) The manuscript contains many occurrences of biased phrasing. "this study is important...", "this is the first...". Consider rewriting these instances into neutral sentences.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOME ANALYSIS OF ROOTS, STEMS, AND LEAVES OF PUERARIA LOBATA (WILLD.) OHWI: IDENTIFICATION OF GENES INVOLVED IN ISOFLAVONOID BIOSYNTHESIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The readability of the manuscript by Wang et al. has improved by English language editing.
Also, the sequencing data have been deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive and can now be accessed.

The discussion section is improved somewhat, but I am still missing a discussion of the findings in relation to published work (for example by He et al., 2019, 2011; Wang et al., 2015 and Han et al., 2015).

However, there is still an issue with the qPCR data.

Comments to the Experimental design
1) qPCR uses three technical replicates. These should be biological replicates, otherwise the error bars just represent the authors pipetting skills.
Response: We agree with reviewer’s comments. Three technical replicates in qPCR has been changed to three biological replicates (line 164-165).

The technical replicates have been changed to biological replicates only in the text.
Figure 6 (previous 7) has not been updated, it is the same as before. If the data shows biological data now, I would expect them to look different than the technical replicates. It does not appear that the authors repeated this experiment with biological replicates, but rather just changed the text and not the data.

Validity of the findings
3) The validation of the RNA-seq data using qRT-PCR (lines 238-245 and figure 7)
The qPCR should use biological replicates instead of technical. The authors conclude that "expression levels ... were all consistent between" qPCR and RNA-Seq, but this is only true for 6 out of the 9 genes analyzed by qPCR.
Response: We agree that the qPCR should use biological replicates instead of technical. Then the expression levels of CL518.Contig3 (PAL), CL2444.Contig2 (C4H), CL1520.Contig3 (4CL), CL3338.Contig1 (CHS), Unigene9945 (CHI), Unigene72602 (F6H), CL2625.Contig2 (IFS2), CL10538.Contig1 (HIDH), Unigene54862 (IF7GT) were all consistent between the qRT-PCR analysis and RNA-Seq data in the article (figure 7 changed to figure 6).

Since the figure has not changed from figure 7 in last version, the comment above about the consistency between qPCR data and RNA-Seq data still holds true. For 6.A, E and F the qPCR and RNA-Seq data are not consistent.
Experimental design: -
Validity of the findings: -
Additional comments: -


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

Input:
Title: COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOME ANALYSIS OF ROOTS, STEMS, AND LEAVES OF PUERARIA LOBATA (WILLD.) OHWI: IDENTIFICATION OF GENES INVOLVED IN ISOFLAVONOID BIOSYNTHESIS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: /
Experimental design: /
Validity of the findings: /
Additional comments: /


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

Input:
Title: COMPARATIVE TRANSCRIPTOME ANALYSIS OF ROOTS, STEMS, AND LEAVES OF PUERARIA LOBATA (WILLD.) OHWI: IDENTIFICATION OF GENES INVOLVED IN ISOFLAVONOID BIOSYNTHESIS
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: -
Experimental design: -
Validity of the findings: -
Additional comments: Thank you for fixing the issues with the qPCR figure. This addresses the final point I had, and I have no further points.