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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF FERTILIZER AND BIOCHAR APPLICATIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG SOIL MOISTURE, TEMPERATURE, AND N2O EMISSIONS IN FARMLAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have gone through the manuscript and i found it language unclear .Literature references, sufficient field background/context has not provided.
Experimental design: Research question is not well defined. Methods described with in sufficient detail .
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are not well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results
Additional comments: I have gone through the manuscript entitled Effects of fertilizer and biochar applications on the relationship among soil moisture, temperature, and N2O emissions in farmland. The author has done work but the author has not represented his work in a perfect way. Already too much data are available on such issue and author should touch new dimension of this field.The language of the manuscript is difficult to understand.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF FERTILIZER AND BIOCHAR APPLICATIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG SOIL MOISTURE, TEMPERATURE, AND N2O EMISSIONS IN FARMLAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: No Comment
Additional comments: Comments in attached pdf


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF FERTILIZER AND BIOCHAR APPLICATIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG SOIL MOISTURE, TEMPERATURE, AND N2O EMISSIONS IN FARMLAND
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - Some references required in introduction
- Figures 4 and forward, caption requires more information to explain what the panels and symbols represent
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: N/A
Additional comments: -	In line 50 (straw returning, biochar application, et al.), please check et al or etc?
-	Line 62 lacks of additional references, you can use the following recent references for help
https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2020.1718923
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(15)60073-X
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88293-6
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-021-00409-z
-	line 120 , please specify the soil depth
-	Figures 4 and forward, caption requires more information to explain what the panels and symbols represent.


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: LOTS OF MOVEMENT, LITTLE PROGRESS: A REVIEW OF REPTILE HOME RANGE LITERATURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is a review of the home range literature for terrestrial/semi-terrestrial reptiles. Some systematic review methods were used, although the authors refer to this as “a scoping review. Not a systematic review”. The focus is on the characteristics of the studies (e.g. design, taxa, location, methods, etc), rather than home range size itself. There have been previous macro-ecological reviews/studies of lizard, snake and turtle home range size, but I am not aware of anything that has specifically reviewed reptile home range studies from this methodological viewpoint. I believe this review will be of interest to researchers working in the movement ecology field more broadly, not just those working on reptiles.

L123, ideally this terrestriality caveat should be mentioned earlier, including in the abstract. Up until now you have been talking about reptiles in a very general sense, but the focus of this review is on terrestrial/semi-terrestrial species. Is there a reason why you excluded marine species? It would be good to explain that here.
L126–127, be more specific here. Were you only interested in areal, not linear, measures of space use?
L165, collected = recorded
L166-167, I don’t understand what this means? Why is something like mean daily displacement relevant if you are only interested in ‘home range’ estimates.
L170, ‘home range estimation’. Do you mean ‘estimated home range size’?
Table 1, claim = report ?
L182, don’t use the term ‘systematic review’ if it this manuscript is not a SR.
L222, it would be useful to include % in parentheses here.
Experimental design: The design and methods mostly seem appropriate. The authors searched for studies in Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus, so there should be good coverage of the peer-reviewed literature. In general the objectives and methods have been explained well.
When I downloaded the dataset I saw that three different people were responsible for extracting the data from the papers, but I couldn’t see where this was explained in the main text. Please add this information, along with an explanation of how you ensure consistent and unbiased data extraction across reviewers.

I was also wondering why did the authors not conduct any statistical analyses to confirm the geographic and taxonomic biases they identified. For instance, chi-squared analyses or some other frequency based method could be used to say compare the number of reptile species present in each country with the number of tracking studies from that country.

Also, by looking at the genera in Fig. S6, it seems that there is a body size bias in the available data (larger genera have more studies). It could be useful to conduct an analysis to quantify this, either at the species or genus level. This body size bias is important because it relates to another comment of mine about how the entire study is framed (see below).

Fig. S1, this is not a proper PRISMA diagram. There should be an extra box under screening that says how many studies were screened and how many were excluded based on the screening. This would explain the 600+ studies that have gone missing between the 2nd and 3rd boxes. The 3rd box on full text eligibility should be under Eligibility, not Screening. http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/flowdiagram#:~:text=The%20flow%20diagram%20depicts%20the,and%20the%20reasons%20for%20exclusions.&text=For%20more%20information%20about%20citing%20and%20using%20PRISMA%20click%20here.
L121, please explain why you limited the search to 2000-2019.
Validity of the findings: The whole manuscript, from the title to the discussion, is framed around the idea that there has been little progress in reptile home range studies. I can see how the authors came to this conclusion, but I don’t think it represents a particularly nuanced view of the field. The idea that there has been little progress rests on the fact that many studies still employ MCP or KDE methods for home range estimation. It is true that there are limitations to these approaches and that more advanced techniques have since been developed. But the manuscript does not acknowledge a major reason why researchers still use these techniques: they simply cannot obtain enough data to use more advanced, data-hungry methods such as Brownian bridge movement models and hidden markov movement models. Most reptiles are small, too small to carry GPS trackers. This means that the volume of tracking data that can be collected is constrained when using VHF tracking. Although there are some very small GPS trackers, e.g. <5 g or <1 g, the battery life is very short and they are very expensive.

I think the authors should add some analyses to quantify these additional biases and add a paragraph to the discussion covering these issues. I thought you might be able to compare the weights of species for studies that used traditional methods vs. more advanced methods (e.g. BBMM), but I could only see five of the latter studies in the data. They all seem to be non-small species, so perhaps you could incorporate this into the new discussion paragraph I suggested. Another way to quantify this bias would be to look at tracking durations and data volumes as a function of body size. I would expect that larger species are tracked for longer and have more data available per individual.

Additionally, sampling a broader time period, say beginning in 1990, would enable the authors to provide a better judgement of changes in the field. Inspecting Fig. 2b shows that the proportion of studies only using MCP has decreased over time, so arguably this is a form of progress. You could actually add a statistical analysis to quantify this change. The adoption of new techniques is often a slow process, so it’s not really surprising that there isn’t an influx of studies using Brownian bridge movement models yet, particularly for reptiles, which are already understudied.

L106 says “to assess whether the field showed a similar trajectory of increasing data volume”, but no temporal analysis of changes in data volumes is provided. This would be a very valuable addition and is related to my points above.

Fig. 2, it is not surprising that the number of studies increased over time. The number of studies in Scopus using (ecology OR conservation) increased from 12,500 in 2000 to 60,000 in 2019. This actually suggests that reptile tracking studies are a growing at a slower rate than ecology/conservation in general. You could add this information as an extra y-axis with a line showing growth in the broader literature over time.
Additional comments: L17, “Reptiles are the most species-rich vertebrate group”. Do you mean terrestrial vertebrate group? There are more species of fish than reptiles.
L46-48, these numbers from Bohm et al. 2013 are a bit outdated now given the number of species assessed for the Red List has increased substantially in the past seven years. Using the advanced search function on the RL website shows that 15% are classed as DD and 18% threatened (CR, EN, VU).
L55, are the efforts or the researchers frustrated? Need to use a different word here.
L56, “during visual count surveys”. Other survey techniques also suffer from these issues (e.g. pitfall trapping).
L61, it would be good to add an extra sentence or two here rounding out the logic that this information can aid conservation efforts. The previous sentences have talked about reptile population declines and lack of data hampering conservation. I would add here some concrete examples where telemetry data has actually informed reptile conservation.
L65, ‘analytical method complexity’. This is confusing. Suggest spelling it out more clearly, perhaps along the lines of ‘broaden the range of analytical tools that can be used’ (if this is what you mean).
L66 and 67, ‘movement-based methods’. What does this mean?
L85, lead should be led
L101, there are more than 1000 reptile species in Australia. Besides, to illustrate the bias it makes more sense to report the 39% figure for reptiles from Goldingay (cf. 16% for mammals).
L104, I don’t think these figures illustrate a lack of advancement. If the % using KDE was 45% in 2001–12 (Goldingay), but 20% in say an earlier period of 1980–1995, then arguably there has been advancement.
Fig. 3, the colour scale for the main map is missing.
Fig. 3, please explain which groups were used to create the reptile diversity map. Was it all species except sea turtles and sea snakes?
L311, ‘being’. Is this the right term? I can’t work out the meaning here.
L316, the wording of this sentence is confusing. Suggest rewriting it.
L339, how does zero-inflation affect tracking datasets? Tracking data in its simplest form contains coordinates, date and time, none of which can be zero. Please be clearer here as to whether you are talking about derived datasets or something else.
L348, ‘significance’. Relevance, accuracy or representativeness may be better terms.
L390. ‘have failed to account for’. I strongly suggest using less inflammatory language here. How about ‘have not accounted for’.


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

Input:
Title: LOTS OF MOVEMENT, LITTLE PROGRESS: A REVIEW OF REPTILE HOME RANGE LITERATURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: •	Clear, unambiguous, professional English is used throughout and easy to understand.
•	References are included where appropriate with sufficient detail.
•	Article structure with figures and tables follows conventional patterns. Raw data is shared via a link.
•	The review is of interest, adds to the body of knowledge and within the scope of the journal.
•	This review is unique in scope and does not repeat recently published meta analyses of this type.
•	Introduction is robust and outlines justification for this research (see additional comments below).
Experimental design: •	Analysis methodology is well detailed and presented in an easy to understand format.
•	Sources are cited well with sufficient detail in the placement of references.
•	Paragraphs in sections flow well into one another based on topic.
Validity of the findings: •	Analysis conclusions mirror the justification set forth in the Introduction.
•	Future recommendations are in sufficient detail with external links provided. An expansion of data reporting guidelines is needed.
Additional comments: Review Summary:
•	Clear, unambiguous, professional English is used throughout and easy to understand.
•	References are included where appropriate with sufficient detail.
•	Article structure with figures and tables follows conventional patterns. Raw data is shared via a link.
•	The review is of interest, adds to the body of knowledge and within the scope of the journal.
•	This review is unique in scope and does not repeat recently published meta analyses of this type.
•	Introduction is robust and outlines justification for this research (see additional comments below).
•	Analysis methodology is well detailed and presented in an easy to understand format.
•	Sources are cited well with sufficient detail in the placement of references.
•	Paragraphs in sections flow well into one another based on topic.
•	Analysis conclusions mirror the justification set forth in the Introduction.
•	Future recommendations are in sufficient detail with external links provided.

Overall summary: Well composed and detailed with sufficient justification included. The authors did very well in explaining their study parameters regarding the inclusion of articles for this meta analysis to highlight lacking data for reptile species. One suggestion for improvement is to expand upon the “Example Report” as a guideline for future studies involving telemetry of reptile species.

Detailed feedback:
Line 45: Include examples of threats.
Line 50: Expand here on the relationship between collapses in diversity and data needs for effective understanding of spatial ecology.
Lines 50 – 54: Reference formatting inconsistent.
Line 67: Define what you mean by “movement based methods” here for the reader to lead into the following paragraphs.
Line 103: Use MCPs instead of ‘the MCPs’ throughout.
Line 106: A paragraph here on the geographic and/or taxonomic biases in telemetry studies of reptiles and others will help to make your justification for this research more impactful.
Line 123: Great explanation of your methodology and decisions.
Line 179: Sentences are redundant and lacking end parentheses.
Lines 180-282: Well written and composed with sufficient detail included.
Line 295: Conclusions are supported by data and external articles.
Line 308: Reference formatting inconsistent.
Line 316: A mention of the need for data sharing should be mentioned at the end of the introduction.
Line 318: A statement here comparing availability of reptile data vs. ornithological or mammalian data on MoveBank would support this statement.
Line 398: More details on recommended data reporting would be helpful here.
Line 393: Supplemental File 2 is not included in my materials.
Line 468: Should be Averill-Murray RC, Fleming… Check reference list for formatting consistency.


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

Input:
Title: LOTS OF MOVEMENT, LITTLE PROGRESS: A REVIEW OF REPTILE HOME RANGE LITERATURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: •	Clear and unambiguous professional English throughout
o	yes

•	Lit references/sufficient background/context
o	Light on movement literature. Why for instance, are some of the foundational papers on space use cited? I’m thinking of Mevin Hooten’s book, and several refs therein—from Moorcroft’s work, to Geert Aarts’ work, to Devin Johnson’s work, to Ephraim Hanks work on continuous time Markov chains. There are a lot of papers in the statistical ecology literature that talk about other approaches and I feel these could be included here.

•	Prof. structure, figures, tables, etc. Raw data shared
o	Line 398 indicates the code is shared, but I didn’t see it in the supplemental folder I had access too. Nevertheless, I applaud the authors for making this call and encouraging users to produce their work in more reproducible fashion.

•	Is the review of broad and cross-disc interest and within the scope of the journal?
o	To me it felt primarily targeted towards herpetologists. I was aware of the issues raised w/r/t the methodological approaches and since I don’t study this taxa, I don’t have a good feel for the reach outside of this audience.

•	Has the field been reviewed recently
o	Seems like from the papers cited in the intro that one is due

•	Does the intro adequately introduce the subject and make it clear who the audience is and what the motivation is?
o	Pretty good, but for me got better on second reading. Motivation could have been clearer. How does this apply to conservation, which is lacking.
Experimental design: •	Article content within Aims and Scope of journal
o	yes

•	Rigorous investigation
o	Yes, thorough in terms of the steps taken, terms used, etc.

•	Methods described with sufficient detail
o	Assume yes. Code is said to be supplied.

•	Survey methods consistent and comprehensive?
o	Not entirely on the movement side. Lit search was unbiased. I liked how the authors highlight geographic and taxonomic biases. Figure 3 is really helpful.

•	Sources adequately cited?
o	For the most part, save for movement lit

•	Logical organization?
o	Yes
Validity of the findings: •	Impact and novelty not assessed
o	No comment - wasn’t really sure how to answer this question.

•	Conclusions well stated, linked to questions, and limited to supporting results
o	Well stated in regards questions, but questions needed improvement/expansion

•	Speculation?
o	No comment

•	Does the argument meet the goals set out in the Intro?
o	Yes, but goals could have been stronger and broader

•	Does conclusion identify unresolved questions/gaps/future directions?
o	Could be stronger.
Additional comments: Crane et al. review the literature on the estimation of home ranges in reptiles, and based on their search find that: 1) the study of home ranges are biased across geographic and taxonomic axes; 2) users who do estimate home ranges are often using outdated methodological approaches; and 3) that users are failing to provide adequate documentation about their methods—both for data collection and for statistical analyses—to facilitate broader meta-analytic approaches. Crane et al. conclude by urging users to use more modern approaches and to do so in ways consistent with reproducible research. The study brings up interesting points that reptiles are much less represented in spatial studies than mammals and birds, and it highlights the bias towards temperate western hemisphere species. The authors should expand on why it’s important to have more studies on tropical reptiles - for instance because the tropics are experiencing more rapid loss of biodiversity. Since there are so many more studies on mammals, this paper should mention how aspects of mammal spatial ecology could be applied to reptiles. Overall, I liked this paper and feel that it’s worthy of publication, but not before some serious revisions are made.

General Comments
I like this paper, and I feel that the authors have done a nice job assembling it and presenting their findings. I also think that it could be made stronger, and appeal to a broader audience with some major revision. In particular my issues are mostly along the lines of the presentation of the issue(s) raised by the authors. The introduction, to me, reads a bit scattered, so it’s hard to get a good feeling, specifically, why a review is needed and what, as a reader, we can expect from the review. Several questions came to mind when I was reading the intro: why do we want to know about the spatial ecology of reptiles? How would knowing more about the movement, and the summary of movement data, help reptiles? Assuming we do want to know, why do we only focus on home ranges? (It’s important to recognize that different movement features happen at different scales, and within the home range, there may be context specific areas and behaviors that are critical for life history. So it would help orient the reader to why this particular spatial summary was chosen.) What are we trying to find and then show in the review. The authors state this on 106-08, but to me anyway, haven’t made the case why these questions need to be answered with a new review. I think it the authors better make the case for a) why the spatial ecology is important, and b) why existing study of it is lacking, then it will be more obvious why the review is needed. Further, it will be clearer when recommendations are stated later in the ms, how they resolve the issues proposed in the intro.

I don’t study reptiles, so have no feel for the diversity/geography tradeoff, nor the allocation of studies across different taxa. This may be well known for readers within the reptile audience, but for readers outside that, it’s not clear why this is a major issue.

Similarly, for the non-quantitative practitioner, some more clarification on the statistics might help the reader. It would help those readers without a strong GIS or statistics background to understand aspects of the study like Figure 2, which was otherwise an effective visualization. However, it was difficult to know what study procedures were better (VHF vs GPS, MCP vs KDE) and why.

Specific Comments
Line 17 of the abstract is incorrect - fish are the most species-rich vertebrate group, not reptiles.

Line 60 – what is meant by “valuable insight?” This part of the intro could be clearer about the specifics of what a) telemetry, and b) proper analysis of telemetry will help tell about reptiles, their ecology, and their conservation. In addition, it’s possible to make the intro appeal to a broader audience here by highlight some other systems where this has been done well.

Line 67 – stagnated, really? It seems like a pretty vibrant field to me, so I was surprised to read this. Do you mean that the uptake of modern techniques by practitioners is stagnating? If so, state that, otherwise I think this is a little misleading. This is kind of what you are implying in 89-90.

Line 92 – if this is the last big review in the field, then I think the authors should stress what new we are to learn with this new review herein.

Line 112 – nice to see this stressed here and throughout the ms – the authors are to be congratulated.

Line 198-99 – it’s nice to see the discussion of the frequency and programming of the tags, as this can be an important question. There’s often quite a tradeoff in the questions you can ask vs. the data you can collect. Some discussion of this (see for example Quick et al. 2019. Mind the gap—optimizing satellite tag settings for time series analysis of foraging dives in Cuvier’s beaked whales ( Ziphius cavirostris ). Animal Biotelemetry 7:5) would help put this issue in context. Further, and importantly from the practitioner point of view, a lot of the Hidden Markov Model machinery can handle these issues (in discrete time anyway). Relatively straightforward model-fitting approaches are attainable, and should be cited, i.e.

McClintock, B. T., and T. Michelot. 2018. momentuHMM: R package for generalized hidden Markov models of animal movement. Methods in ecology and evolution / British Ecological Society 9:1518–1530.

Michelot, T., R. Langrock, and T. A. Patterson. 2016. moveHMM: an R package for the statistical modelling of animal movement data using hidden Markov models. Methods in ecology and evolution / British Ecological Society 7:1308–1315.

While still on the data collection discussion, the authors should also take into consideration cost while recommending higher sample sizes and study durations.

Figure 4 and the accompanying data in the “Geographic and taxonomic biases” section starting at line 257 is interesting, but some of it is an oversimplification. The authors seem to be suggesting that the percentage of species studied of each clade should be proportional to the size of the clade. This overlooks advantages of thoroughly studying and understanding a single clade, like Crocodylia. Furthermore, it would benefit from having much more specific conclusions on how improving reptile spatial studies aids in conservation. This would help tie in Figure 5 more and show how these two space-use estimates directly apply to reptile conservation.

I particularly liked Figure S1 which helped me visualize how the studies were chosen and filtered. However, I felt that Figure S2, the word cloud, didn’t add much.

The analysis of terms used in studies (line 377 to 380) seemed overly nitpicky, detracting focus away from quantifiable aspects of the data reporting. I like the author’s call on 383 for standardization


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: LOTS OF MOVEMENT, LITTLE PROGRESS: A REVIEW OF REPTILE HOME RANGE LITERATURE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The authors have done a good job of responding to the earlier reviewer comments, including mine. Many of the arguments are much better supported now the thinking has been fleshed out more. The figures in this paper are top notch, well done! I just have some relatively minor comments, detailed below.

L12, methodology for *studying* reptiles ?
L44, that Tucker reference is good, but you might consider supplementing or replacing it with something that has data on reptiles. e.g.:
https://academic.oup.com/jue/article/6/1/juaa014/5867359?login=true
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01380-1
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/geb.13225
L47, nature = natural
L223, "Such reporting is key when measurements of movement capacity are calculated". It's not clear what this means. Maybe save it for the Discussion anyway.
L274, I suggest rewriting this sentence to change the order. It is confusing to say all other countries were low, but then reveal that x y z broke the trend. "All other countries are dramatically lower (<8 studies, 30 countries with a single study), with only Australia (35), Canada (22), and South Africa (12) breaking the trend."
L300, 'at a population level'. I think you have adopted this term from brms, but it is confusing to use it here in an ecology paper. Suggest changing/removing it.
L308, 'decisions on' should be 'decisions about' or 'decisions regarding'
L325, somewhere here it could be worth mentioning that there is a negative relationship between number of genera within a major clade and proportion studied (L289 in the results). In some ways it is not surprising that only a small number of the 500+ snake and lizard genera have been studied.
L349, this is also relevant here https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534718302817
Fig S1: the box ‘Reports sought for retrieval’ should have 413, not 1028.
Supp File 2, is there a reason why the species name is not included? It could be worth adding a little preamble to this explaining why the file is included (so that it can stand on its own independent of the main text). Further, as per your own recommendation, I suggest you define your terms in this document. It is confusing to say at the start you located animals every 8 or so days, but in figure 2 you refer to this as ‘Time lag between tracks’. Figure 1, I can only see the different black and red lines if I zoom in 1000%. Suggest you make that figure fill a whole page, or choose a different method to show the differences.


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

Input:
Title: LOTS OF MOVEMENT, LITTLE PROGRESS: A REVIEW OF REPTILE HOME RANGE LITERATURE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors are to be commended for making a great effort to respond to all my comments as well as the those of the other reviewers. The manuscript is much stronger now, and I recommend it 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: INHERITANCE OF HEAT TOLERANCE IN PERENNIAL RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE, POACEAE): EVIDENCE FROM PROGENY ARRAY ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The document addresses an important issue for agricultural crops in the context of climate change. It provides information related with the physiology and genetics of adaptation and tolerance to heat stress, using Lolium perenne as a model plant for other C3 agricultural crops. The introduction and discussion of results provides adequate scientific background context. The morphological and physiological traits described in the study were measured using appropriate and sound lab methodology. The manuscript is concise and well written. The article structure is appropriate, in general, but there are some suggestions to improve it, made and marked directly in the document

In the results and discussion section, I would suggest to describe first the results and then discuss them. Thus, I would suggest moving the first three paragraphs of this section to either the introduction (antecedents/context) or after presenting some results. Revision and reorganization of this section would also allow to avoid repetition of some results, as indicated by specific comments in the document.
Experimental design: Several important points are missing or not completely described in the Methods section, particularly those related with the genetic context of the study. This missing information introduces confusion on the genetic interpretation of the results and limits the possibility for replicating the experiment properly. For instance, it is not clear whether the cross between cultivars involved a single-parent cross from each cultivar and the 72 genotypes included in the trial are then full-sibs from a single family. If the cross involved several individuals from each cultivar, then describing the family structure and relationships of the 72 genotypes evaluated would be very useful. Similarly, it is not clear what the authors mean when they mention that “six replications” per genotype were used. How were the genotypes (original parents and the 72 descendant genotypes replicated)? Through their progeny (i.e., sexual propagules) or through clonal replicates (i.e, vegetative propagules). This is an important and crucial issue for interpreting the results, because if the genotypes were actually replicated (either sexually or clonally), then variance components between and within genotypes can be estimated, and, from them, heritability estimates (narrow-sense, broad-sense or clonal repeatability, depending upon the nature of replicates). If so, the authors are missing and excellent opportunity to really address genetic control of traits measured in the study. Otherwise, if genotypes were not really replicated, then the document is dealing only with phenotypic variation within a single full-sib family, and not really evaluating genotypes, nor interpreting genetic variation.

It should also be described how the parents used in the cross were included in the experimental layout with their progeny genotypes. They are not mentioned in the first paragraphs when describing the experiment set-up. Where they evaluated in separate experiments or were they included in the same experimental layout with their progeny. If so, it would be important to mention how they were replicated in order to have similar age and plant size development as their progeny evaluated.

A more detailed description on the leaf sampling procedure for evaluating morphological and physiological traits would also improve interpretation and understanding of the results. For instance, Chlorophyll Fluorescence and H2O2 measurements were done in the same leaves? Same or different leaves were sampled before and after the stress? Number and position of leaves sampled on each plant? How the environmental factors were controlled while sampling and measuring Chl Fluorescence in the 72 genotypes and replications?
Validity of the findings: The results presented in the manuscript are valid, and they seem to be statistically sound. However some doubts on the statistical and genetic interpretation of results arise from the missing information in the methods section about the procedure used for "replicating" the genotypes in the experimental design and trial layout. Clarification on the methodological issues raised would also help to support the conclusions of the study.
Additional comments: In my opinion, the manuscript has valuable information, but in its current stage there are some doubts on the genetic context, interpretation and meaning of results. A revised version addressing the methodological issues mentioned above would substantially improve the quality and meaning of the study.

I have made (and marked) several specific comments, questions, and editing suggestions directly on the PDF file of the manuscript, which should be shared with the authors for their benefit in order to be addressed in a new and improved version.


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

Input:
Title: INHERITANCE OF HEAT TOLERANCE IN PERENNIAL RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE, POACEAE): EVIDENCE FROM PROGENY ARRAY ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Experimental procedures are clear with good acceptable English. Should have provided more references. In few occasion references are missing.
Experimental design: Experimental design is good and fit with the aim and scope of the journal. The research questions are not well defined and no rigorous investigation performed.
Validity of the findings: Nothing new is there about the ROS signaling due to stress responses and hence do not possess any novelty.
Additional comments: The reactive oxygen species stress mediated by H2O2 is a common phenomenon in plant stress biology that lead to decrease in the photosynthetic rate. It impacts the PS II. So there is nothing new in the manuscript. It is a primitive work and do not bear any extra input to the scientific community that can be useful for the reader. Few of the comments are as follows
1.	Abstract section: please replace the word “significance”. Else mention the p value.
2.	The H2O2 content generally get increased due to stress thereby decreasing the photosynthetic rate. Higher Fv/Fm is related to higher level of photosynthetic activities (PSII). However, during stress conditions, the Fv/Fm ratio get lowered which is explained in the article. However, there is no phenotypic data to show the stress conditions and percentage of stress incurred to the plants.
3.	The Fv/Fm value range from 0.79 to 0.84 in normal conditions. However, your Fv/Fm value in stressed plants are lower in the case of N4 and in the suitable range in the case of K7. Why it is in the normal range in the case of K7?
4.	Line 154: please explain the statistical details of the significance. This applicable for all parts of the manuscript.
5.	 Statistical analysis was not conducted for any experiment.


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: INHERITANCE OF HEAT TOLERANCE IN PERENNIAL RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE, POACEAE): EVIDENCE FROM PROGENY ARRAY ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I liked the topic of the manuscript. However, the manuscript needs substantial improvement. All sections, introduction, methodology and result/discussion, all need much work in terms of content and also writing. Latest publications are not cited. The flow in writing is weak, needs more work. Detailed comments are provided "general comments for author" section"
Experimental design: The manuscript needs to state more clearly the importance and scope of this research in relation to the crop under this study which is missing. The research design looks ok to me. However, I have some concerns related to the pot size that was used to grow the plants for more >80 days. Detailed comments are provided "general comments for author" section"
Validity of the findings: No comments.
Additional comments: Overall comments:
The topic of the manuscript is very interesting. But, the manuscript needs further work to improve it. There is a need to add some content, improve the results and discussion section, and further improve the flow in the manuscript.

Abstract section:
General comments:
Needs improvement. The problem in association with the crop should be stated appropriately. The conclusion should include the implications of the study.
Specific comments
Line 24: It may be better to write only “background”
Line 24 to 25: C3 crops including “…”
Line 27-28: Materials and methods need further improvement. Rewrite it.
Lines 29-36: Maybe you can reduce the content on leaf traits to only one sentence considering the results obtained.

Introduction section:
General comments:
The introduction part does not introduce the crop. There should be at least a small paragraph mentioning the importance of the crop and the need for this particular study. It is also important to provide brief importance of key traits evaluated in association with heat stress in the introduction section.
Specific comments:
Lines 50 to 56: Please include recent climate data if possible. The data presented here is good but almost 15 years old.
Line 71: …cereals including common wheat?
Lines 73-75: There are recent studies on heat stress. Please include them and refine this section.

Method section:
General comments:
The language in the method section needs to be improved. The method should be presented with further clarity. Need some improvement in the flow too.
Specific comments:
Line 86: Mention “heat tolerant and susceptible”.
Line 86-87: Need to mention when the cross was made. Similarly, in which generation were the 72 lines derived from the cross?
Line 97: 40 days.
Line 99: Need to define Fv, Fm early on. Fo and Fm are defined later in the paragraph but not Fv.
Lines 118 to 119: Were the plants that were used in taking destructive samples used in the evaluation of parameters of chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics? Not sure but this might have some impact on the assessment.

Results and discussion:
General comments:
The flow of results and discussion need to be improved. I suggest talking about chlorophyll fluorescence in one paragraph, about H2O2 in the other followed by leaf traits. Then, you may want to present the association of these different traits in terms of heat stress tolerance. The discussion part is weak. It needs strengthening with more supporting literature. There may be limited literature available on rye. But similar studies are available for other crops such as wheat.
Specific comments:
Line 140: Are these kinds of studies still limited? If yes, please include a recent citation.
Lines 138 to 153: Some of the information in between these lines may fit better in the introduction section.
Lines 188 to 189: What do you mean by “less genetically controlled”?
Lines 189 to 194: There are many studies that have indicated the importance of leaf traits in conferring heat tolerance. This study did not show that but it is worth discussing in further depth not only to present the importance of leaf traits but also what other reasons could have led to this result.

Conclusion section:
If one of the key findings is that “the traits under study” are genetically controlled, it should be mentioned that there is a possibility of improving heat/thermal tolerance through breeding.


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

Input:
Title: INHERITANCE OF HEAT TOLERANCE IN PERENNIAL RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE, POACEAE): EVIDENCE FROM PROGENY ARRAY ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: As I indicated earlier, I liked the topic of the manuscript. There is definitely some improvement in the manuscript. One of the weaknesses that still remains in the current version is the language and flow. I still insist on improvement in the focus, especially in the introduction and discussion.
Experimental design: This looks fine to me.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Abstract:
It looks better but I still insist on some language improvement to make it crispy.
Line 29: Find a better option/word for “great association”.
Line 31: Wide genetic association was “observed”..could be better.

Introduction
I can see some improvement but I see the need to improve the language and flow. The brief importance of traits evaluated in the study is still missing.
I believe that there are recent climate data on heat stress that could be used in the section from line 54-57).
Line 68: Scientific name of wheat.
Line 72-73: This needs recent citation.

Method:
It is improved. But I would suggest one more round of English edit.

Results:
Presentation of results separately looks better.
Some English edits will improve this section.
Line 154-155 is the repetition of information, remove it.

Discussion:
The discussion part looks much improved compared to the previous version. But it needs focus and further strengthening.
Line 174-179 is a kind of repetition from the result section, better remove it.
Lin 171-173: Take it to the paragraph that starts from line 187.

Conclusion
Make the conclusion more succinct. From line 200, the content looks more like a future perspective rather than a conclusion.


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: INHERITANCE OF HEAT TOLERANCE IN PERENNIAL RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE, POACEAE): EVIDENCE FROM PROGENY ARRAY ANALYSIS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study was appropriately designed and the morphological and physiological traits described in the study were measured using appropriate and sound lab methodology. The results and discussion is mostly relevant to the specific objectives and hypotheses stated. The manuscript is concise and mostly well written. It has certainly improved in relation to earlier version, but there are a few spelling and gramar errors, that should be considered for correction. They are marked through the document with the tracking tool to facilitate revision and change. The article structure is appropriate, in general, but there are also some suggestions to improve it, made and marked directly in the document. References are all appropriate. Figures and tables are also appropriate, and only some suggestions are made to add or improve information and data provided in them. Suggestions are indicated directly on the Figures and Tables in the PDF file.
Experimental design: The research questions are well defined and the experimental design is appropriatte to those questions; Most suggestions made to the earlier version were appropriately addressed in the revised version, but there are still missing some important points related with the composition and replication of genotypes (parental and 72 F1 full-sib igenotypes involved in the study), and with the statistical model and assumptions considered in the data analysis. Full and detailed description of the genetic materials evaluated in the study, the precise number of replications (individual plants) for each genotype used in the trial and the consideration of "fixed-effects" or random-effects" model for genotypes is required in order to be able to appropriately replicate the experiment and would help to interpret correctly the results obtained.

Considering the information provided in the revised version of manuscript, it seems that parental and 72 F1 full-sib genotypes obtained from a single cross between the two parental genotypes were tested by using 6 (or 12?) plants from each genotype (i.e, F2 progenies from the F1 full sibs?) but the question is how these progenies were obtained? by self- or open-pollination?

In addition, the clarification of the "fixed-effects" or "random-effects" model in the statistical analyses of data is required to avoid confusion by using ambiguously the terms "significant differences" or "significant variation". Additional specific comments are included directly in the Word and PDF files of the revised version of manuscript.
Validity of the findings: Results presented in the revised manuscript are valid, and they are statistically sound, provided the doubt raised  about the number of replications used for each single genotype (particularly for the 72 F1 full-sibs) is properly solved. Clarification on the methodological issues mntioned before and commented on the manuscript would solve these issues and  properly support the conclusions. However, the terms and concepts  "significant differences" vs. "significant variation", and "genetic variation" vs. "phenotypic variation" should be unambiguously used, once the replication and model assumptions issues are clarified and solved..
Additional comments: In summary, in my opinion, the manuscript has clearly improved from the earlier version, but there still are a few and important issues and metodology questions that need to be addressed and clarified, providing additional details, in order to reach its full potential and meet quality standards for publication in this journal.

I have made (and marked) several specific comments, questions, and editing suggestions directly on the Word and PDF files to help the authors the specific questions and doubts that require clarification. The edit-tracking tools used to identify these comments and suggestions would facilitate to carry out the revision, and obtain a new, improved version.

Please, check comments made on both files, particularly those in the PDF file for Tables and Figures


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: INHERITANCE OF HEAT TOLERANCE IN PERENNIAL RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE, POACEAE): EVIDENCE FROM PROGENY ARRAY ANALYSIS
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The document structure and writing has improved substantially in the revised version. There are only a few spelling/typing errors, which are identified and marked in the revision file attached. These typing errors include some citations in which the author’s name or the publication year doesn´t coincide with the references listed.

Most of the comments made to earlier versions of the manuscript have been addressed by the authors in the newly revised version. However, there are still a couple of basic issues in the experimental protocol which haven´t been clarified. These two issues are important because they create confusion when interpreting the results obtained. Moreover, the information provided about these two issues in the earlier versions of the manuscript have been contradictory, adding to this inconsistency and confuse use of basic statistical principles supporting the proper interpretation of results. The authors mention that “seeds of the two parental cultivars and the progeny were germinated” and later on, they also mention using a “randomized complete block experimental design”, but they never mention how many seeds or replications were used for each parental cultivar and the progeny. Furthermore, when they describe the statistical analysis they mention that they “tested for significant differences between the two parental cultivars and among the progeny, implying that both the parental cultivars and the individual progeny were replicated. But they never describe how they obtained and used the replicas of each individual progeny.

In this sense, if the parental cultivars and the progeny were replicated, to be consistent with the description of the statistical analysis and the “F values” provided in Tables 1 and 2, they should address and clarify the questions of how many replicates were used in each case (for parental cultivars and for each individual in the progeny) and how the replicates for the individuals in the F1 progeny were produced, as requested in earlier revisions.

On the other hand, if the parental cultivars or the individuals in the progeny were not replicated (if only a sample of 72 individuals in the progeny were evaluated), then the experimental design should be described differently, since in such a scenario it is not possible to “test for significant differences among the progeny”, and the meaning of the F value in Tables 1 and 2 should be explained properly, as well as the interpretation of results shown in those Tables. In this scenario, only the basic descriptive statistics (mean, variance, standard deviation, range of extreme values, ec.) for the progeny sample can be obtained and described. The variance of the sample would be an estimate of the phenotypic variance among the progeny for the traits measured in the study.
.
I have made (and marked) several specific comments, questions, and editing suggestions directly on the Word and PDF files to help the authors the specific questions and doubts that require clarification. The edit-tracking tools used to identify these comments and suggestions would facilitate to carry out the revision, and obtain the final version.
Experimental design: Already addressed in the first section (and in earlier revisions)
Validity of the findings: Already addressed in the first section (and in earlier revisions)
Additional comments: Please address carefully and thoroughly all the specific comments, questios and suggestions marked directly in the attached Word/PDF File containing the revised 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: INHERITANCE OF HEAT TOLERANCE IN PERENNIAL RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE, POACEAE): EVIDENCE FROM PROGENY ARRAY ANALYSIS
Review round: 5
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The current, revised version of the manuscript has addressed all the concerns and issues raised in the earlier versions. The authors have properly answered and included all the suggestions made by the reviewer. Thus, the revised version of the manuscript could be accepted for publication. There are only a couple of spelling/typing errors, which are indicated and edited directly on the manuscript using the tracking tools, so they can be solved by the authors or directly by the editor.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: INHERITANCE OF HEAT TOLERANCE IN PERENNIAL RYEGRASS (LOLIUM PERENNE, POACEAE): EVIDENCE FROM PROGENY ARRAY ANALYSIS
Review round: 5
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Some of the figure legends (1, 2, 3 and 4) appear to be incomplete
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: In my opinion the manuscript ‘Inheritance of heat tolerance in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne, Poaceae): evidence from progeny array analysis’ is a clearly presented report of a robustly designed experiment considering an important aspect of forage selection. The results support the conclusions and, if implemented, the advances in plant breeding and selection will ensure that perennial ryegrass continues to be a productive component of pasture based livestock production systems in the future. I only have a few minor comments for the authors to address:
Line 120: change ‘temperate climates regions’ to  ‘temperate climatic regions’
Line 138 - 139: change ‘they had higher’ to ‘the plants had higher’
Line 185: please clarify the N-P-K ratio
Line 234: change ‘for significance differences’ to ‘for significant differences’
Line 247: change ‘All statistical analysis’ to ‘All statistical analyses’
Line 256: please add ‘and table 1’ to Fig. 3 in parentheses as this shows that there were significant differences
Line 260 – 261: I am not convinced that figure 3d shows that the leaf growth traits of the majority of the progeny were equal to or greater than the values of the two parental cultivars and suggest that it is removed
Line 346: change ‘we measure prior’ to ‘we measured prior’


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: CLINICAL AND PROGNOSTIC RELEVANCE OF CXCL12 EXPRESSION IN ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a well written paper dealing with an important issue in the field of acute myeloid leukemia diagnosis and treatment. I believe this paper is offering a relevant contribution to the knowledge of the disease.  It is clear and not ambigous. Easy to be read and understood.  I do not have major comments, just from the ending point of view:
Article meets the required targets. Rerences are more than suffient ( can be reduced).  Too many figures.
Experimental design: Very well desuigned retrospective registry study
Validity of the findings: The paper is too long and can be significantly reduced without losing an important message.
This is a retrospective research article based on different data base screening and analysis. Because this is not a prospective research study conclusion must be more prudent limiting to suggest prospective controlled studies. Authors correctly underlined this limitation in the last discussion paragraphs but I believe limitation should be reported in the abstracts also. Moreover I suggest a more prudent title.
Too many figures.
.
Additional comments: I support pubblication after editing revision


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

Input:
Title: CLINICAL AND PROGNOSTIC RELEVANCE OF CXCL12 EXPRESSION IN ACUTE MYELOID LEUKEMIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: As a computational analysis study, this manuscript directly goes to the single CXCL12 gene without giving a systematic overview of differential genes or cytokines in AML, so there is weakness in experimental design before diving into this particular cytokine.
Validity of the findings: no comment.
Additional comments: This study explored the prognostic value of CXCL12 in acute myeloid leukemia by associating CXCL12 expression with immune infiltration, pathway enrichment, and cancer survival. The exploration is generally valuable analysis, however, there are multiple concerns as following.
-	The decision to focus on specifically CXCL12 is not clear. The authors can improve by at least starting looking at genes/cytokines most differential between AML and control to provide the reason to focus on this specific cytokine, rather than cherry-picking one cytokine.
-	The authors used CIBERSORT for immune deconvolution; due to the high heterogeneity of immune infiltration deconvolution algorithms with different cell types available, a better practice is to utilize multiple deconvolution methods to cross-check the association with immune infiltrates. For example, popular deconvolution methods include TIMER, CIBERSORT, quanTIseq, xCell, MCP-counter, EPIC, and immuneDeconv. These methods can be used to validate whether the significant B cell difference is reproducible for CXCL12 expression. In fact, the CIBERSORT algorithm is incorrectly written as CIBERSOFT in line 130.
-	The unit of gene expression from GTEx and any transformation shall be noted, e.g. in Fig1a whether this is TPM or log scale. Same issue in Fig1b for CCLE expression unit, and also for all following figures.
-	In comparison with the hematopoietic stem cells of differentiated states, there shall be statistics and number of samples shown to prove the higher expression of CXCL12 in HSC than the differentiated states.
-	Given that CXCL12 in the current manuscript likely link to monocytes and some other immune cells, it is suggested that single-cell data can be used to show the cell-type resource of CXCL12, and study the potential interaction with other cell types based on cytokine-receptor interaction.
-	There are analyses of mutation status with possible synergy with CXCL12. There shall be mechanistic research into why the different mutations can be related to the CXCL12 level.


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: CAUSALIZER: A TEXT MINING ALGORITHM TO IDENTIFY CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I took a few days to read this manuscript as it deals with an area that I've been working in for the past couple of years, and I must say that the article is well written, with clear and concise language, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. There are a few minor comments about the basic reporting that I believe the authors can work on to improve their article.

Minor corrections to the grammar in the article can help convey the design and findings of the work convincingly, such as corrections on line 43 (a data-driven, not an),.

In the introduction, the authors claim that within the broad area of biological research, NLP tools have seen applications primarily in biomedical disciplines. However, multiple areas within the broad umbrella of biological research have witnessed the application of NLP to scientific literature, such as ecology (Han & Ostfeld 2019), and conservation (see: McCallen, Knott et al. 2019; Nunez-Mir, Iannone et al. 2016; Knott, Rue et al. 2016). It would be prudent of the authors to cite these works as well.
Experimental design: The authors have clearly described the framework of their experimental setup in the final few lines of the introduction itself. Immediately, I know what to expect from the following sections and there is no ambiguity here and the authors must be congratulated on their writing!

In the "Proposed Design" section, authors have also taken into consideration several areas where the language of the texts that they'll be analyzing might adversely affect the outcomes of their analysis and have accordingly accounted for such outliers in their dataset.

Overall, the experimental design of the study makes sense. The authors have broken down this complex problem into a set of logical rules and analyzed this simplified state of the texts, rather than the nuanced language used in scientific texts.
Validity of the findings: The authors might want to briefly explain some of the jargon associated with network analysis, before diving into their discussion of results. For example, I had to look up the meaning of casual relationships, linkages and unique links in the context of network analysis before diving into the results.

The presentation of the figures could be improved. The authors might consider using Graphviz to generate these figures, since they're essentially bi-directional graphs. The authors might also consider improving the resolution of their figures. The labels in Figure 1 at the top left corner below the keyword "height" are not legible, and might be relevant to readers of the article upon publication. The overlap between the keywords and edges of the graph in Figure 2 make it difficult to appreciate the intuitiveness of the results presented.
Additional comments: As mentioned earlier, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article! I really look forward to reading more about this work, especially on this very exciting bit put forth in the Discussion about scenario creation. One could analyze vast troves of scientific literature say, pertaining to climate change and develop food webs such as the one in Figure 2, and analyze and dissect the factors leading to climate change from literature. Such tools will aid researchers in identifying potential "breadcrumbs" in the literature that they might not have initially posited.

This is just one of the many possible applications of your tool, in addition to management scenarios that you have mentioned under Conclusions. Such tools can be invaluable to both students embarking on their research, as well as to advanced researchers identifying causal relationships in lesser studied ecosystems etc. I hope you broaden the scope of the applications of your tool in the Conclusions.

The suggestions that I've put forth are minor ones and I hope that you consider them in good sport. All the best with this work and I hope to see more of this research in the near future.


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

Input:
Title: CAUSALIZER: A TEXT MINING ALGORITHM TO IDENTIFY CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting is clear and unambiguous. Please see comments below.
Experimental design: The methods needs a bit of work and I have outlined where the authors can focus on.
Validity of the findings: See comments below.
Additional comments: Overarching comments:

While automated content analysis tools can potentially offer a causal relationship or even establish a causal relationship simply based on the overall co-occurrence of certain keywords/nouns (in this case), ecologists are often interested in asking why there might be an underlying relationship or the basis for a particular complex ecosystem interaction. Identifying a complex interaction might not necessarily need a text mining approach. Could the authors make a stronger case why a text mining approach rather than a standard literature review would help unravel any complex interaction?

I would recommend that the authors add an additional paragraph to establish the novelty of their package – which is combining network analysis and text mining. Perhaps start by talking about what network analysis is, in the first place and establish the strength of combining the two.

Sievert and Shirley (2014) wrote a package in python called pyLDAvis which essentially creates a concept map that showcases intertopic distance between topics/clusters of words that are often combined. How is your package unique/different from the above?

Can the authors provide a figure that is a flowchart of their package so that the readers understand what the authors have tried to showcase here?

As I read the manuscript, I wonder if it maybe easier for the reader to understand the workflow first, and then the application – where the authors should reiterate what their hypothesis is before they showcase how the hypothesis is being tested using their framework.

Section-specific comments:

Please provide a link to the package/associated code in the abstract (like a Methods in Ecology and Evolution article for the reader to get a sense of the applied aspect of the package).

Line 74: Where were the abstracts sourced from?

Lines 169-171: Can probably find a better place in the introduction.


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: NOVEL SAMPLING METHODS FOR MONITORING ANOPHELES ARABIENSIS FROM ERITREA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See general comments
Experimental design: See general comments
Validity of the findings: See general comments
Additional comments: This is an interesting manuscript that address a topic of unquestionable public health relevance. The authors present a complete study that aims at evaluating different trapping methods for host-seeking and resting mosquitoes. Being able to assess local mosquito populations is important to apply adapted control measures. Moreover, sampling outdoor biting mosquitoes is essential if malaria elimination is aimed.
On the other hand, multiple methods are presented, and the understanding of the methodology could be complex for the reader. Moreover, some aspects of the manuscript and methodology are not clear. I recommend that the authors make the manuscript simpler by providing a clearer structure. In summary, I recommend the publication of the manuscript after some major revisions are implemented.

My comments:

Materials and Methods:
-	It is not clear how many days the experiments last for. Could the authors explain how many times each of the collection methods were repeated?
-	When explaining the methods, can the authors add subtitles indicating the methods used for resting, host-seeking and exiting vegetation mosquitoes?
-	Authors use “shed”, “shelter” and “site” indistinctively. I think it will be easier to follow if they stick to using the same word along the manuscript.
-	Could the authors provide a description of the terminology used to classify females according to their abdominal stage (including the definition of pre-gravid females)?
Line 119: Study design. Can the authors show in Fig.1 the disposition of the Latin square design experiment? Where is it located? In the “trapping sites”?
Line 131: Why were mosquitoes only collected in animal shelters and not in human dwellings? How many days were the collection techniques repeated?
Line 138: Can the authors be more specific about how the time sequence of the collections? (e.g. how many days they collected in a row? How many days there were no collections)
Line 181-185: These considerations could be moved into Discussion.
Line 204: Can the authors add a picture if the Suna Trap in the Figures?
Line 239: “females sorted according to their abdominal condition”. Please, include the terminology used.
Line 240: “species using the techniques of Scott et al”. Could the authors add that these are molecular techniques based in PCR. Which was the method used to collect these mosquitoes?
Line 259: It is not clear what the authors mean by “collection regimes”.
Results:
Line 297: “Numbers collected declined during the experiment whilst at”. I suggest “Total numbers collected declined…”
Line 311: A single quantity of males (112) is given, but there are 2 shelters?
Line 320: “the Backpack may have dramatically underestimated“. Backpack estimates 161, Manual does 218. Does not seem like a dramatic underestimation to me.
Line 352: “the proportion of blood-fed and gravid A. arabiensis females collected from Shed 1 were significantly higher than Shed 2”. I do not see this in Table 2 (Shed 1: 42.6%, Shed 2: 50.6%).
Line 371: Performance of host-seeking sampling methods. The authors provide different values in this paragraph (mosquitoes per night, total mosquito numbers, odds of collection) Could the authors be consistent in the values provided for the different methods (e.g. mosquitoes collected per night)?

Discussion: I miss the discussion of these results:
-	Why is the Suna Trap not effective in this setting?
-	Why more the greatest number of mosquitoes collected from the sentinel tent-trap?
-	Why was the probability of mosquito catch by manual aspirator lower than the other methods?

Line 412: “Whilst we were unable to estimate total numbers in the sheds on all but a few occasions our results indicate that a single round of collection from an indoor resting site using a mechanical sampler rather than manual aspiration is a suitable sampling procedure”. Could the authors explained better how do they support this statement?

Figure 1:
I think this figure should include more information. What is the meaning of “outdoor trapping site”? Where are the animal shelters located? Where were the HLC performed?

Figure 4:
A legend is missing.

Figure 5: Could the authors use “shed” instead of “site”? Can authors name 1-5 as rounds?

Figure 6:
In the legend, what does “reference” refer to?

Figure 8: y-axis refers to total collected per night?

Table 1:
Could the authors include the real numbers of mosquitoes collected?

Table 2:
Legend: More than “mean numbers”, the table refers to “proportions”. Could the total numbers be shown?


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: NOVEL SAMPLING METHODS FOR MONITORING ANOPHELES ARABIENSIS FROM ERITREA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clarifcations needed & suggestions

Line 234 – Instead of a video a picture of the net can be given as a figure. If the video is to be included, it needs to be shortened.
 Lines 310-311 & Lines 322-324 – Numbers given in Table 1 and those mentioned in the text do not tally
Line 348 – Change the first word ‘The’ to “There”
Lines 348-350 – If proportions for shed 1 and Shed 2 are given it would be better, or at least mention in which categories there was a difference- Table 2
Figure 3 – Picture showing the Furvela tent trap II may be deleted as there is a video showing the tent
Figure 4 - Caption says ‘A. arabiensis collected from experimental tents’ are these collections include only the two Furvela tent traps or sentinel tent trap and Suna trap as well?
Genus Anopheles is generally abbreviated as An.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: NOVEL SAMPLING METHODS FOR MONITORING ANOPHELES ARABIENSIS FROM ERITREA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: see below
Experimental design: see below
Validity of the findings: see below
Additional comments: The track-changes word document that the authors have included is not the same one as the pdf. Unfortunately, I have used the word document for my review. There are some mistakes regarding the figure referencing in this word document. Please, make sure that this is not the case in the final manuscript. In general, I think the manuscript would benefit from a clearer structure that will facilitate the reading. In some parts, it takes time to understand which mosquito collection method the authors are referring to. I would recommend that the authors revise this one more to increase the understanding. Likewise, in some parts it is not clear how many time the experiments have been repeated.
Background:
Line 96: Perhaps the authors can indicate that collectors are used as baits in tent-traps. Otherwise it is difficult to follow the sentence flow.
Methods:
Line 140: The study design is still not completely cleared to me. The "Latin square design" rotated between the 5 positions, or was each sampling method in a different location each night? Please, clarify.
Line 218: Could the authors indicate that the Furvela tent-trap Type II corresponds to Fig. 4?
Line 252: Methods regarding swarm observations are not included
Line 261: I would add a new subsection regarding this paragraph, something like: “Mosquito classification”.
Figures showing different sampling methods will benefit from a better labelling to indicate the different trap components.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CURCUMIN DERIVED POLYPHENOLS ON THE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY COVID-19 MAIN PROTEASE BINDING POCKET: A MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. INTRODUCTION (lines 5-6) and rest of the manuscript: the authors make errors in the naming of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19 (COronaVirus Disease-19). Please make sure that this is correct! Since the paper covers the study of SARS-CoV-2 protease, the use of COVID-19 is not that appropriate. (unless you write it as COVID-19 virus)

2. The language needs to be improved considerable, particularly in the introduction and abstract. There are several errors which make it difficult to understand the manuscript. For example (lines 21-24); "Crystal structure of the CoVID-19 Mpro were obtained from the protein data bank gave a major advance for structure-based drug design of natural polyphenols and proteins gives well-established techniques to derive and to reveal important dynamic information in proteins."

3. The use of terminology is not consistent and sometimes incorrect. For example;
variations on COVID-19 found throughout the text: Covid-19, COVID_19, CoVID-19
Abbreviation of Mpro was introduced but not consistently used

4. Some of the literature cited is not yet published or still under review, hence how can this be used as a good reference? For example, references; 9, 23

5. There is no "results" section.
Experimental design: 1. The research questions could be defined more clearly. This is probably due to language issues.
Validity of the findings: 1. The authors state that they analyzed the binding mode of Carmfur and identified the hydrogen bonding residues. However, the seems to have already been reported in the reference that they cite along with it and has been investigated in detail in reference 7. Maybe this statement is incorrect? I don't understand

2. The authors analyze 3 polyphenols. The seem to claim that two of these had better binding modes. However, to me this is not clear from the analysis since there is not a clear difference.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CURCUMIN DERIVED POLYPHENOLS ON THE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY COVID-19 MAIN PROTEASE BINDING POCKET: A MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The author appraised this paper by combining docking simulation and biochemical study. However, your article is inadequately presented. Furthermore, there are many grammatical mistakes and spelling mistakes, as well. Also, the similarity index is very high (around 45%).
Although the article has scientific rigour, several major flows need to be corrected before publication.
Experimental design: 1. The authors just have written several issues haphazardly. Many sentences/information throughout the manuscript have serious flaws that withdrawn my attention from it.
2. Many non-scientific and incorrect/wrong information/sentences are there, which may mislead the readers.
3. The current manuscript will add no new information/recommendation for the readers.
4. Every section of the manuscript must be written scientifically according to the published literature with appropriate references.
5. The work seems preliminary. The study problem is not apparent. Can the authors explain the importance of natural polyphenol in the introduction section?
6. The article title is very ambiguous. The authors need to simplify the title.
7. The abstract section is unsuitable—no focus point in the abstract section.
8. In the introduction section, the authors provided some information about the traditional usage of the species used and tested as anti-cancer, anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, antiviral and so on. It is unclear why they choose the species for antiviral drug development? It is possible for any plant species to have some effects on any disease, which is common. There is no uniqueness of this species concerning the above-mentioned activity.
9. The introduction section is inapplicable. Need to change the introduction considerably. Try to include the existing research limitations also, how the present research unravels those limits.
10. English is poor. The authors need to improve their writing style. The whole manuscript needs to be checked by native English speakers.
11. Authors are suggested to replace \'CoVID-19\' with \'COVID-19\' throughout the manuscript.
12. The author should discuss more docking simulation studies in the discussion section.
13. In the discussion part, the author claimed that their suggested compound bind in the active cavity of the targeted protein but they did not write which amino acid particularly bind with the compound.
Validity of the findings: 1. The experimental section is poorly designed for further docking analysis. Why the author choose the main protease crystal structure 7BUY? They could use them to analyze the active site instead of other servers which do not have proper validation or cross-checking with other tools.
2. In the method sections, the software's they used were not explained properly—lack of ligand preparation section for docking analysis.
3. Result section is a parody. Nothing was explained although very less explanation can be found in the discussion section. Why are the active site residues important? The compounds they found how they are interacting with active site lacks explanation.
4. The study is based on Mpro protein. The Mpro protein is the most abundant protein in coronavirus, and it is normally conserved. Have the authors tried to explore in silico study in unique structural proteins such as spike protein?
5. In silico prediction is unlikely fitting with the wet-lab data. Experimental validation of the predicted compounds is highly required to recommend any predicted target as a potential vaccine.
 6. The conclusion needs to address future perspectives.
Additional comments: I found this manuscript very groundwork and do not recommend to publish in the present form. I also find the present manuscript lacks for its originality. Radical changes are obligatory before go for the final version.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CURCUMIN DERIVED POLYPHENOLS ON THE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY COVID-19 MAIN PROTEASE BINDING POCKET: A MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The title is not appropriate for this manuscript because the authors only include 3 polyphenols in this study.

Why did the authors do the molecular dynamics in 50 nanoseconds? I consider a very short time to reach a final conclusion.
In line 228-230: two polyphenols are identified, namely curcuma sp, demethoxycurcumin and bisdemethoxycurcumin polyphenoles that have inhibitory activities against new COVID-19 main protease.
Please; corrects that turmeric sp is not a polyphenol.
Authors should have done an in-silico pharmacokinetic evaluation to understand how these molecules could cross the gastrointestinal barrier and be druggable. Many molecules are actives in docking test but they have a poor absortion by oral route and it is the main problem of turmeric supplements. Please, try to improve your discussion considering this topic in regard to the pharmacokinetic properties of curcuminoids as well as limitations of this study.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CURCUMIN DERIVED POLYPHENOLS ON THE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY COVID-19 MAIN PROTEASE BINDING POCKET: A MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author appraised this paper by combining docking simulation and biochemical study. However, your article is inadequately presented. Furthermore, there are many grammatical and spelling/typos mistakes, as well.
Although the authors made several corrections, it still needs some additional revisions.
Experimental design: 1. Still, there are many non-scientific and incorrect/wrong information/sentences that are there, which may mislead the readers. For example, lines 68, 78 etc.
2. Most data are now backdated since we are now at the end of September. I suggest to accept it after updating it with the addition of newly updated data
3. English is still low. Needs extensive language editing.
4. There are many syntax errors and awkward sentences. Please carefully edit the whole manuscript sentence by sentence to improve its readability. For example, lines 68, 78, etc.
5. There are lots of redundant sentences repeating in the whole paper, making me feel the paper like a “cut and paste” from several other resources. For example, line 77: “ Among phytochemicals compounds, polyphenols possessing a variety of potential biological benefits such as” and line 66: “ Up to now, there are no robust drugs and vaccines for wide-spread SARS-CoV-2 virus. Finding a new drug in the wet lab and bringing it to market is hard, expensive, and time-consuming”. The latter sentence is not a way of scientific description. I suggest deleting sentences like this (there are more throughout the paper).
6. The authors need to deploy the sentences more scientifically.
7. Some sentences are not standard English and feels strange.
8. The author should discuss more docking simulation studies in the discussion section.
9. In the discussion part, the author claimed that their suggested compound bind in the active cavity of the targeted protein but they did not write which amino acid mainly bind with the compound.
Validity of the findings: 1. Tables in absolute numbers do not make sense.
2. In silico prediction is unlikely fitting with the wet-lab data. Experimental validation of the predicted compounds is highly required to recommend any predicted target as a potential vaccine.
 3. The conclusion needs to address future perspectives.
Additional comments: I found this manuscript basis and do not recommend to publish in the present form. I also find the current manuscript lacks for its originality. Radical changes are obligatory before go for the final version. Therefore, the article in this present form cannot be published in this journal.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CURCUMIN DERIVED POLYPHENOLS ON THE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY COVID-19 MAIN PROTEASE BINDING POCKET: A MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: After reviewing the manuscript titled "The impact of curcumin derived polyphenols on the structure and flexibility COVID-19 main protease binding pocket: A molecular dynamics simulation study" and corrected the commentaries of reviewers. I suggest to approve this manuscript.

It is necessary to improve the spelling of English grammar. Table 3 of ADME prediction in Supplementary material is absent.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CURCUMIN DERIVED POLYPHENOLS ON THE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY COVID-19 MAIN PROTEASE BINDING POCKET: A MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION STUDY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author appraised this paper by combining docking simulation and biochemical study. However, your article is inadequately presented. Furthermore, there are many grammatical and spelling/typos mistakes, as well.

Although the authors made several corrections, it still needs some additional minor revisions.
Experimental design: 1. Still, there are many non-scientific and incorrect/wrong information/sentences are there, which may mislead the readers. For examples, lines 16, 17, 68 etc.
2. There are many syntax errors and awkward sentences. Please carefully edit the whole manuscript sentence by sentence to improve its readability. For examples, lines 72-74,  etc.
3. The authors need to deploy the sentences more scientifically.
4. In abstract, authors are advised to depict the precise outcome of work. Like what are you revealed from molecular dynamics simulation of vaccine candidate and its impact?
5. Some sentences are not standard English and feels strange.
6. What was algorithm of molecular docking tool, add it, Has author performed protein- ligand profiler of vaccine, it will be helpful to define the molecular contacts? Also explain how was interactions identified.
7. Authors have employed the computational docking and MD simulation analysis but not have given proper reference.
8. Overall language and of the manuscript should be improved and correct the spelling mistakes.
9. In the discussion part, the author claimed that their suggested compound bind in the active cavity of the targeted protein but they did not write which amino acid mainly bind with the compound.
10. Can the authors compare their results matching/ correlation with the latest vaccines in the market? Can the authors add something in manuscript related to new strains/mutations reported for SARS-CoV-2?
Validity of the findings: 1. In silico prediction is unlikely fitting with the wet-lab data. Experimental validation of the predicted compounds is highly required to recommend any predicted target as a potential vaccine.
2. Can the authors add something in manuscript related to new strains/mutations reported for SARS-CoV-2?
3. Why no docking figures in the main text file?
Additional comments: Though the authors addressed some of my comments but still, I found this manuscript basis and do not recommend to publish in the present form. Minor changes are obligatory before go for the final version.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CURCUMIN DERIVED POLYPHENOLS ON THE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY COVID-19 MAIN PROTEASE BINDING POCKET: A MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION STUDY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors proposed to investigate the inhibitory effect against COVID-19 and identification of important residues for interaction with curcumin sp derived polyphenols. Based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that the investigated curcumin sp derived polyphenols could be interact with the important residues in the enzymatic binding pocket to inhibit the main protease enzyme Covid-19 virus. Demethoxycurcumin and Bisdemethoxycurcumin have a hydrogen bonds and high affinity with Main protease (Mpro). Furthermore, the average RMSD values of the backbone atoms in docked curcumin sp derived polyphenols were calculated from 10000ps and showed stable RMSD values between 1 to 2nm for Bisdemethoxycurcumin and Demethoxycurcumin at the reasonably consistent temperature (∼300 K) and pressure (1bar), whereas diferuloylmethane complex showed RMSD value between 3.0 to 6.0nm with same cut-off parameters. These data validated that the docked Mpro-Bisdemethoxycurcumin complexes and Mpro-Demethoxycurcumin complexes are more stable than Mpro-diferuloylmethane complex. In order to completely investigate the effects of curcumin sp derived polyphenols, this study recommended the roles of polyphenols identified for further exploration in experiments in vivo and in vitro.
Experimental design: The experimental design was improved according to my comments.
Validity of the findings: The findings were supported by the statistical analysis and several methods used during thw in-silico analysis.
Additional comments: The authors improved and corrected my comments based on my comments in previous reviews. This manuscript could be accepted in its current form.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CURCUMIN DERIVED POLYPHENOLS ON THE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY COVID-19 MAIN PROTEASE BINDING POCKET: A MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION STUDY
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author appraised this paper by combining docking simulation and biochemical study.
Although the authors made several corrections, it still needs some additional minor revisions.
Experimental design: 1. Check the spelling of Covid-19 and SARS-COV2.
2. Some spelling mistakes are still in there (e.g., treate, Sp. etc)
3. The authors need to deploy the sentences more scientifically.
4. In discussion update the information. The current information is old (March 24, 2021, 20:04 GMT).
5. Overall language and of the manuscript should be improved and correct the spelling mistakes.
6. In the discussion part, the author claimed that their suggested compound bind in the active cavity of the targeted protein but they did not write which amino acid mainly bind with the compound. It should be corrected.
7. Use the full form (e.g., WHO) whenever use for the first time.
Validity of the findings: Looks okay now.
Additional comments: Although the authors made several corrections, it still needs some additional minor revisions.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF CURCUMIN DERIVED POLYPHENOLS ON THE STRUCTURE AND FLEXIBILITY COVID-19 MAIN PROTEASE BINDING POCKET: A MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION STUDY
Review round: 5
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author appraised this paper by combining docking simulation and biochemical study.
The authors made the revisions as per my comments.

The revisions look good to me. The manuscript is good enough to publish in PeerJ journal.
The authors did an excellent job.

Congratulations!!!
Experimental design: The revisions look good to me.
Validity of the findings: Looks okay now.
Additional comments: The authors made the revisions accordingly. The revisions look good to me. The manuscript is good enough to publish in PeerJ journal.


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

Input:
Title: DEVELOPMENT OF A PREOPERATIVE INDEX-BASED NOMOGRAM FOR THE PREDICTION OF HYPOKALEMIA IN PATIENTS WITH PITUITARY ADENOMA: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is well writing and holds an important topic of discussion. I have no serious concerns against this draft, however; I would like to suggest few changes before considering this draft for publication. Authors to consider to modify the draft according to suggested changes in methodology and discussion section.
Experimental design: Can author explain that whey they opted for 7:3 distribution for training and validation cohort. Would it be not better to have equal distribution?
The definition of the hypokalemia widely varies across studies, authors must provide sound justification of using such cut off values for the purpose of current study.
Please provide appropriate references for definition section in the methodology.
Authors have provided much details in the statistical section, even study participants features and distribution is discussed in this section. Authors may consider to make following headings in the methodology section 1. ethics, 2. study location. 3. study population, 4. inclusion and exclusion criteria, 5. data collection and management, 6. statistics
Validity of the findings: The findings of the current study is interesting. Author tried to relate these findings with the other studies,  but still rigor in comparison is currently lacking. Authors should describe the association and possible mechanism of predictive variable with the hypo-K, following its corroborating and contravening comparison with other studies.
Please also state the normal values of AUC in the statistics section that what is the meaning of high and low AUC.
Additional comments: Manuscript requires few corrections in grammar in syntax, particularly in introduction and discussion section.
Authors should consider to reduce the word count in the introduction section. this section is quite verbatic. This section should primarily discuss the linkage between PAs and hypo-k, and its impact on prognosis and outcomes. Moreover, rational of the study must be clearly enumerated in this section, e.g. why this study is need of time in the presence of previous literature.


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: DEVELOPMENT OF A PREOPERATIVE INDEX-BASED NOMOGRAM FOR THE PREDICTION OF HYPOKALEMIA IN PATIENTS WITH PITUITARY ADENOMA: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of clinical parameters and preoperative biological indices on postoperative hypokalemia and to build and validate predictive models for postoperative hypokalemia with the significant parameters. The structure of this article had an acceptable format of standard sections, the logicality of the article was also relatively fluent.
Experimental design: 1) In the introduction, it should be introduced whether there are similar models in this field, and if so, how accurate the prediction of such models is.
2）It was recommended to use non-random grouping in the grouping of training set and validation set, so that the difference between groups could help test the external authenticity of the model. Authors could refer to the TRIPOD statement (PMID: 25561516).
3）The authors used restricted cubic spline modeling to analyze the independent variables and found that some independent variables were not monotonically increasing or decreasing in relation to the outcome. However, in the final Nomogram model, those independent variables were still used as continuous variable, such as serum potassium. Thus the significance of the application of restrictive cubic subsection was lost, and the model would be not very accurate. The author should treat the above variables according to the results of the restricted cubic spline.
4）Authors should refer to the Tripod and Probast statement. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. The TRIPOD Group (PMID:25561516), and PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration (PMID: 30596876).
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: It is suggested that the author modify the construction method of the model and the analysis method of independent variables according to the above suggestions to re-estimate the prediction effect of the model.