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: BLOOM EVENNESS MODULATES THE INFLUENCE OF BLOOM ABUNDANCE ON INSECT COMMUNITY STRUCTURE IN SUBURBAN GARDENS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No major concerns
Experimental design: No major concerns
Validity of the findings: No major concerns
Additional comments: Thank you for your re-submission. It is greatly improved over the previous version. It looks like you've clarified most of my issues from the previous round of review.

Could the authors add a line to the MS about where their collections are stored? If they can be stored with a museum collection this would be ideal so others can go back and repeat or expand on the work.

I will raise this once more because it is unclear from your response:
In Bloom Data (S1) you still have last names and addresses as ID codes. It is very easy to use this information to find your participants. From your response, it sounded as if you were obscuring this but I don't see that to be the case. If anonymity is important, then your participating homeowners are not anonymous.

Line 341: this line seems odd, I thought some Dolichopodidae were known pollinators?


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: BLOOM EVENNESS MODULATES THE INFLUENCE OF BLOOM ABUNDANCE ON INSECT COMMUNITY STRUCTURE IN SUBURBAN GARDENS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors assess how suburban insect communities (with a specific focus on flower visitors) are affected by plant community diversity, site size, and distance to greenspace, in an effort to identify landscaping practices that support insect conservation. The authors have collected a very impressive dataset, and the objectives/hypotheses are now clearly outlined in the revised manuscript. Their work is better framed in a broader field of conservation and the potential applied aspects are highlighted well in the discussion section.

This is an important contribution to knowledge of subtropical urban insect communities, especially due to the sheer volume of data collected. This manuscript in much improved from the previous versions. It is clear that the authors have done quite a bit of work in revising this manuscript and almost all of my previous comments have been addressed thoroughly and adequately. The inclusion of well-outlined hypotheses has really improved the structure of this manuscript. However, the title should be revised and the figures/tables do still need some improvement. Some of the figures are still not appropriately described or labeled (see specific comments file). Overall, the manuscript is clearly written with few grammatical errors, but there are some sections where clarity could be improved in the writing. The discussion is also quite long, and would benefit from an effort to make it a bit more succinct.
Experimental design: Overall, the experimental design and the methods are described much more clearly in this version. The statistical analyses are sound, due especially to the revision of the models and the inclusion of site and date as the random effects. The authors have now included the detail that was lacking in the first version.
Validity of the findings: The authors have now adequately justified their study design and given enough detail on their data collection and analyses methods to sufficiently replicate the study, and to give the reader confidence in their findings. The results of the modelling are clearly stated in the tables, although the tables/figures do need some revision. The limitations of the study are now clearly and thoroughly outlined in the discussion.
Additional comments: See specific comments file.

[Additional comment from Reviewer 2 added by staff as requested by the Academic Editor:
"Just a note a comment by Reviewer 1, about some Dolichopodidae being pollinators – as the author may have changed their categorization of this fly family based on my previous comment. Maybe you can pass on the reference to the authors to justify their categorization as non flower-visitors. Their role as pollinators is understudied, but as a family they largely not considered flower-visitors. This assertion comes from Table 1 of Larson, B. M. H., P. G. Kevan, and D. W. Inouye. "Flies and flowers: taxonomic diversity of anthophiles and pollinators." (2001). Although there may be more recent studies, I am unaware of any."]


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 BIOSONAR OF THE BOTO: EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENCES AMONG SPECIES OF RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA SPP.) FROM THE AMAZON
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper presents a valuable set of consistently gathered high-resolution acoustic data from widely dispersed sites and all the significant taxonomic candidates.
The findings are relevant to taxonomy and to passive acoustic monitoring. The level of discrimination of taxons for these tasks is significantly different - a level of misclassification of say 10% still leaves potentially useful evidence of taxonomic distinction, but will substantially limit the accuracy or applicability of acoustic monitoring. This could be usefully discussed.
Only a small sample of raw data from one animal is provided.
Experimental design: The sampling rate or rates used need to be stated.
The custom routine used to derive values for bandwidth needs more description. Clicks in the data sample show bimodal spectra but it is not clear how this was handled.
Clicks in the data sample also show, in the waveform, that there is a frequency trend within the click that would be seen in a Wigner plot. It is possible that this might be another discriminating feature.
Looking at the waveform it does appear that the bimodality and temporal trend in frequency are likely to be related with a louder lower frequency early component and a weaker later higher frequency component.  Each may represent some natural resonance in the acoustic pathway within the animal and be relevant to the task in hand.
'we analysed both on and off-axis clicks' As the earliest and latest clicks in a recorded 'train' are generally off-axis this could be used to get an more information on the beam structure of the taxonomic groups.  The raw data of a single train provided does show less high frequencies in the off-axis clicks.
 The choice of 3 clusters from the k-means analysis is based on the silhouette analysis which slightly favours 3 clusters over two.  However the decision line this creates (Figure 4)  between clusters 1 and 2 is not very plausible, while a classification into (1 and 2), (3) would be much more plausible. This is an arguable choice, but in the context of the general risk of over-classifying where the data may not be fully representative I would argue strongly for 2 clusters to be used.
Validity of the findings: The main limitation of this is clearly recognised by the authors and is the limited sample sizes, and the spread over seasons and locations.  If the acoustic characteristics of the clicks are adapted by the dolphins to fit environmental conditions, including prey types and sizes, then the generalization performance may be compromised, and the OOB errors in random forest cannot reflect that variation that is outside the set of samples. However this data remains a valid contribution to the development.
The limitation recognized by the authors applies to both the identified tasks. In the case of application to passive acoustic monitoring it would be relevant to note that in many locations the key tasks will be low error rates in achieving distinction from Sotalia and from non-cetacean noise sources.

re  Model performance is considered acceptable when AUC 0.7 (Swets, 2013).    The acceptable level of performance depends on the task in hand.  Where very low FP rates are required AUC is itself of limited value.
Additional comments: Valuable data is presented very clearly, and these notes are on minor textual issues:

Abstract
Echolocation clicks can reveal the anatomy of the vocalizing animal, enabling the distinction of species.
>> 'reflect the anatomy' might be more accurate as we do not know, at present, how to predict anatomy from the subtle acoustic features reported.
Differences in acoustical parameters of clicks are mainly related to skull morphology
>> that is a bold claim, given that the acoustic properties of the soft tissues of the acoustic pathway are as significant as the bony tissues.

56 their clicks, mainly with the increasing use of passive acoustic monitoring
>> 'mainly in response to the increasing'
78 thereby
>>  and
79  79 responsible for their separation are subtle, the Araguaian and Bolivian botos are still for being recognized by
>> needs re-phrasing
87 Until then, we are not aware of studies that
>> We are not aware

100 boliviensis was sampled in the Madeira River withing
>> within

108 the upper reaches of the river, low nutrient is available, with rapid flow of sediments and sandy
>> river nutrient levels are low, there is rapid flow and sandy sediments.

115 (várzea) (Latrubesse & Sinha, 2005), being the Itamacará waterfall the limit for river dolphins’ distribution
>> 2005). The Itamacará waterfall is the upper the limit of the dolphins’ distribution

117 and one of the main tributaries of the Amazon river basin, extends to three countries
>> in the Amazon basin extending to

122 tributary of the Tocantins-Araguaia basin. It is a low depth-black-water river with 2,600 km in length
>> omit with

139 For data collection, a small outboard vessel was used for displacement and dolphins’ observation.
>> displacement?

141 in the water, 2 meters depth approximately.
>> in the water approximately 2m below the surface.

159 and the click trains were detected trough visual analysis in Raven Pro software.
>> through

166 coefficient of variation. Then, Kruskal-Wallis test was
>> Then the K...

252 frequency will be the strongest peak in the spectra (Au, 1980).
>> Au does say that, but I have measured this from Botos and Tucuxi and not found it to be uniformly true. Not published!


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 BIOSONAR OF THE BOTO: EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENCES AMONG SPECIES OF RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA SPP.) FROM THE AMAZON
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Melo et al. reported differences in the biosonar parameters between Inia spp. The authors should be more cautious when suggesting that differences in “biosonar” could differentiate species. First, because there are few individuals per lineages. Secondly, because there are different types of "calls" that could indicate from a specific type of prey to a stick floating in the river (for example turtles have a large intraspecific repertoire of "calls”). The authors do not specify if the audios were recorded in the breeding season, which leaves many doubts if the acoustic parameters are related to some type of reproductive isolation. The ontogeny of specimens also can be a problem. Did the authors know if they recorded juveniles or adults, males and females?
In addition, the authors report not differences between subspecies. If we follow the main idea of the MS that is differentiate lineages by biosonar parameters, the subspecies must disappear. This is not good for conservation, because the subspecies have their own evolutionary history. In addition, the authors report that hybrids between I. geoffrensis and boliviensis have divergences in the biosonar parameters. Based on their title (“…a tool to distinguish the species of river dolphins from the Amazon”) we have a new species?  Also, I strong recommended that the authors use lineages and not “species” or “subspecies”.
Despite this, Melo et al. presented an interesting study that arise new taxonomic and ecological questions for Iniia spp.
In methodology, there are few recording specimens by lineages. I suggest a PCA or DFA (discriminant function analyses) including all the Iniia spp. and not only the lineages of Madeira. This will be supporting the evidence that there is difference between lineages in biosonar parameters. I also suggest a boxplot between lineages using the peak frequency. This will facilitate the readers note the biosonar differences between botos.
The results seem as a comparison between “acoustic” parameters of species. I suggest the authors describe the bioacoustics parameters per lineages, and include (if they have) the environmental conditions of the recording (i.e. water temperature, rain or sunny day, season of record, etc.). Peak frequency is the same than dominant frequency? The authors did not discriminate between them.
In discussion the authors are refuting their own work (322-339) when they say that the variation in the acoustic parameters can be caused by a multitude of variables, from ecological to evolutionary. Based on the biological species concept the “calls” must prevent the breeding between lineages. I missed discussing more relevant topics from the point of view of discrimination between species of mammals using the biosonar parameters. The authors can discuss the relevance of reproductive isolation and the use of acoustic parameters in identifying the proper lineage.
All the others suggestions are in the annotated MS.

Since English is not my first language, I ask the authors be careful by the paragraphs written by me.
Experimental design: Work with river dolphin are very difficult. The collected data is extraordinary and new. However, there is a few specimens per linages and absent of data as ontogeny of recording specimens.
Validity of the findings: This is an important contribution for evolutionary ecology in the genus Iniia
Additional comments: The MS needs a new focus. Describe and compare the biosonar parameters of Iniia lineages, made a PCA or DFA and show the differences. In discussion, explore the importance of these divergences in an evolutionary and species delimitation context.


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 BIOSONAR OF THE BOTO: EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENCES AMONG SPECIES OF RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA SPP.) FROM THE AMAZON
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is clear and professionally structured. I made a few comments on the manuscript to improve the English.
Experimental design: The range in frequency response of the hydrophone is pretty high (+3/-20 dB), did you  correct these values with the transfer function? Would it be possible that the lower frequencies reported in this paper compared to previous papers are also related to the lower hydrophone sensitivity beyond 44 kHz when you loose flat response of your hydrophone? I think this aspect should be clarified.
Also, I assume that your data is not normally distributed so why do you report mean values instead of medians? I think medians will describe better your data, specially for comparison with other studies and species.
Validity of the findings: I have concerns related to how the non-flat frequency response of the hydrophone beyond 44 kHz can affect the frequency parameters reported in this paper, specially when comparing with other studies. This aspect needs further clarification in the paper.
Additional comments: I like the statistical approach of this paper and think results showed in this paper are relevant as a first step for further studies applying passive acoustic monitoring on these endangered Amazon river dolphins.


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 BIOSONAR OF THE BOTO: EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENCES AMONG SPECIES OF RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA SPP.) FROM THE AMAZON
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors improve considerably the manuscript. The structure of the MS are well done. There are some puntual suggestions made by me in the introduction and methodology.

My main concern is in the figures. They seem to be little worked for such an important publication on the ecology and evolution of the river dolphins.

I suggest improving the figures (see my comments in the MS). The authors could edit them to improve the quality of the images and make them more impressive.
Experimental design: well done
Validity of the findings: Melo et al. presented an interesting study that arise new taxonomic and ecological questions for Inia spp.
Additional comments: Well done, the MS was improve. however, I strongly recommend improve the figures (see my comments in the MS). This work is impressive and the figures have to be too. The authors could place images of the environments where the samples were taken, of the species of river dolphins in relation to their recordings, etc. be more imaginative.


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 BIOSONAR OF THE BOTO: EVIDENCE OF DIFFERENCES AMONG SPECIES OF RIVER DOLPHINS (INIA SPP.) FROM THE AMAZON
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is clear and professionally structured.
Experimental design: The authors addressed well previous comments from reviewers.
Validity of the findings: This is an important contribution for evolutionary ecology in the genus Inia and as a first step for further studies applying passive acoustic monitoring on these endangered Amazon river dolphins, but standardization of methogology applied in future studies would be key.
Additional comments: Valuable preliminary data is presented, hopefully continuation of this studies will improve understanding and conservation status of Amazon river dolphins.


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: COMMERCIAL ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGAL INOCULANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH IN A VINEYARD DESPITE PRIORITY ADVANTAGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this article, the authors evaluated the performance of a commercial AMF product to be established in vineyards. Although the experiment is very simple, it is novel in terms of the potential applicability to the industry. It shows the reality of this type of products. Similar experiments with more biocontrol agents should be performed in the near future. My major criticism is that the authors only used one grapevine rootstock genotype and the experiment was performed in only one vineyard plot. Rootstock genotype and soils with different physico-chemical properties should had been included in this study.

Apart of these comments the manuscript is well written and will significantly contribute to add to our current knowledge on AMF and thus, I recommend publication after revision. Literature references are sufficient and the structure of the paper is appropriate. Hypotheses and results are well connected.
Experimental design: Regarding the experimental design, it is not clear to me how many vines were used per treatment. Perhaps it should be described better in the text instead of doing it in the Supp material. Apart from this comments, methods are described with sufficient detail and information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: In general, all relevant data has been showed in the manuscript. Conclusions are well stated and linked to the original research questions.

I have only a comment regarding the ddPCR positive results in Lines 311-314 & Table 2. Bio-Rad’s Droplet Digital PCR Applications Guide says that if a single wild-type or negative sample control well is run and the observed positive droplets are zero, then it is good practice to require at least three positive droplets in order to call a sample positive, and the three positive droplets can be in either a single well or across merged wells. I think the authors should follow the most restrictive recommendation of Bio-Rad's guidelines in order to avoid potential false positives to be account as positive samples for the quantification of the AMF from the interrow soil and vegetation roots samples, in order to have better accurate data.
Additional comments: In this article, the authors evaluated the performance of a commercial AMF product to be established in vineyards. Although the experiment is very simple, it is novel in terms of the potential applicability to the industry. It shows the reality of this type of products. Similar experiments with more biocontrol agents should be performed in the near future. My major criticism is that the authors only used one grapevine rootstock genotype and the experiment was performed in only one vineyard plot. Rootstock genotype and soils with different physico-chemical properties should had been included in this study.

Apart of these comments the manuscript is well written and will significantly contribute to add to our current knowledge on AMF and thus, I recommend publication after minor 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: COMMERCIAL ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGAL INOCULANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH IN A VINEYARD DESPITE PRIORITY ADVANTAGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: English is clear and professional.
The literature and background provided are good. One key author is missing in the discussion, the work from Lionel Ranjard. For example Karimi, B., Cahurel, JY., Gontier, L. et al. A meta-analysis of the ecotoxicological impact of viticultural practices on soil biodiversity. Environ Chem Lett 18, 1947–1966 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01050-5
Please add the importance of the natural soil communities (plant-associated or not) on the efficient colonization of BCA or AMF. Organic production seems to favour soil microbial diversity. This would mean the higher the diversity, the higher the chances to get low colonization by the BCA of AMF because the ecological niche is already taken.
The application method is also important, like presented recently in Trichoderma work by Wynand J van Jaarsveld et al. 2020. Investigation of Trichoderma species colonization of nursery grapevines for improved management of black foot disease. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6030, which may enrich the discussion.
Experimental design: The field trial is well conducted.
However the reader needs more details about the product tested. Your titles generalized the results to all preparations possible, but it focuses on a product actually advertised for green house usage. How does the company advices to inoculate the product when planting in soil?

Is there a link between those strains: Rhizophagus irregularis DAOM 181602=DAOM 197198  because I found this accession when looking for sequences on ncbi ?
I looked at the product MYKE® PRO GREENHOUSE • G on manufacturer’s website. The active ingredient is Glomus intraradices, current name being Rhizophagus. Please clarify and cite the description by Schuessler, A. and Walker, C. 2010. The Glomeromycota: a species list with new families and new genera 1-58. electronic publication. Available at: www.amf-phylogeny.com to clarify this.
Validity of the findings: This is the critical point for this manuscript. It is difficult to prove that something is not present. In order to strengthen this work, authors should solidify their molecular diagnosis. They are few positives, and after sequencing they do not particularly match the reference sequences on ncbi. It is difficult to be sure, reading at the data presented, that the molecular tool actually worked in these conditions.
I would like to see a basic PCR test from a pure culture of R. irregulare showing an expected product, with a confirmation by sequencing. In addition it is disturbing to read on the website company that the active ingredient seems to be another species within the same genus, Glomus intraradices.

Please do not generalize too much this negative result to all the AMF product because only one was tested, in one location of one combination cultivar x rootstock.
Additional comments: Dear Editor, the manuscript “Commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculant failed to establish in a vineyard despite priority advantage” submitted by Corinna Thomson and colleagues’ addresses a key question in agroecology: inoculation of BCA/AMF and their persistence in the agroecosystem. The manuscript is well written and the field trial well conducted. Despite author’s expectation the commercial product used did not colonized the grafted plants, with a very low number of positive. I recognize the important amount of work realized to test all the samples. I agree with authors that it is important to publish this result, but it is difficult to prove that a phenomenon is not in science. To do so the molecular biology needs to be more convincing and confusion clarified.
Indeed the few positives has been send for sequencing, and sequences do not match the reference one in ncbi. A basic PCR showing that the primers actually amplify the fungus in from pure culture and from the control artificially inoculated would help, with a confirmation of the sequences. I guess the artificially inoculated plant use as positive showed amplification in the ddPCR analyses, confirming the sequence would strengthen the manuscript. Finally, because few details are given about the commercial product and its uses, I went on the website of the manufacturer. This product is design or advertised for greenhouse usage, but more importantly the active ingredient is Glomus intraradices which seems a relative but different species that the one targeted in the molecular diagnostic.

For all those reasons I would recommend to reject/major revisions the manuscript and invite authors to resubmit after clarifying these points. I encourage authors to do so because these experiments are really important for helping vinedressers to move to sustainable farming, and unfortunately they are still too rare.


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: COMMERCIAL ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGAL INOCULANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH IN A VINEYARD DESPITE PRIORITY ADVANTAGE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The article is good 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: COMMERCIAL ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGAL INOCULANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH IN A VINEYARD DESPITE PRIORITY ADVANTAGE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article completes all those criteria
Experimental design: -	Scope of the journal: negative result important to share for improving the development of efficient AMF/BCA agents.
-	Research question relevant and well defined
-	Rigorous investigation with high technical and ethical standards
-	Method described with sufficient detail: thank you for the nice explanation, in supplement data, of the ddPCR molecular technique and the way you handle the data, fix your thresholds.
Validity of the findings: -	 Negative result well described and relevant for our research community
Additional comments: The manuscript entitled “Commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculant failed to establish in a vineyard despite priority advantage” authored by Corrina N. Thomsen and colleagues investigates the establishment of a AMF product in an organic wineyard five years after treatment.
This study is very precious because colonization success is a key question in developing new BCA or biofertilizers for a sustanaible viticulture. Despite the negative result, the work is well conducted and pleasant to read. Very interesting description of the way to handle and analyse ddPCR data.
All the question I had during the first round of rewieving has been answered clearly and I thank authors for this.
I recommend to accept this manuscript 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: SOIL MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN ORGANIC AND NON-ORGANIC PASTURE SYSTEMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: This research focused on effects of organic pasture management on the soil microbiome for sustainable forage production as soil microbiome diversity contributes to improved nutrient cycling, soil structure, plant growth, and environmental resiliency. As previously soil microbes and their function under pasture grazing system  was poorly investigated. I recommend this study for possible publication. Experimental planning using Illumina 16S rRNA gene amplicons followed by bioinformatics are enough to collect required data.


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: SOIL MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN ORGANIC AND NON-ORGANIC PASTURE SYSTEMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article entitled “soil microbial diversity in organic and non-organic pasture systems” present the response dynamic of soil microbial diversity to organic and non-organic livestock pastures using the 16S rRNA sequencing technique. Excellent work! Please see the attached word document; I have made some corrections within the text.
Experimental design: The authors described methods with sufficient detail and information to replicate; good work. However, the authors are advised to add weather data of the experimental site because changes in rainfall and temperature significantly influence the decomposition process in soil, which affects the soil microbial diversity under different field conditions.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Additional comments: Specific Comments
Abstract
The abstract needs to be revised (e.g., give some specific results of the measured indices and name the methods to achieve the goal/aim described in the background).

Materials and Methods
The authors are advised to add weather data of the experimental site because changes in rainfall and temperature significantly influence the decomposition process in soil, which affects the soil microbial diversity under different field conditions.

Introduction
The introduction is not providing the enough information on the research background and research gap. The authors should add more literature on previous findings of soil microbial diversity in various conditions, especially under organic and non-organic pasture systems.

Discussion
I think authors should rethink what they write in the first paragraph, and only summarize the main findings in view of the research questions. After this, authors can explore in subsequent paragraphs different aspects of the work and explain how their findings expand the envelope of knowledge, but first of all, authors simply need to state the main findings without discussing their why and how or the relationships to the literature. First of all, the reader needs a clear statement on what the study found.


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: SOIL MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN ORGANIC AND NON-ORGANIC PASTURE SYSTEMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors can add weather data if the authors want to add.


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: SOIL MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN ORGANIC AND NON-ORGANIC PASTURE SYSTEMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: Acharya et al compared soil bacterial diversity between organic and inorganic pasture ecosystems and overall, paper is well written with relevant literature cited and I recommend minor revisions. I recommend authors to add more literature in introduction to strengthen the paper. Specifically, adding literature on effect of soil bacterial communities on management practices help since this paper aims at looking on the effect of soil bacterial community changes on management practices. Since grazing is the important component in experimental design, I also recommend authors to add relevant literature on grazing practices on grasslands and their effect on soil bacterial community composition and diversity. As established in the earlier sections about grazing, there were no relevant sections in the discussion about the effect of grazing on soil bacterial communities. There was literature supporting the effect of grazing and I highly recommend authors to revise and add effect of grazing on soil bacterial communities. I also recommend authors to discuss about the effect of plant species on soil bacterial diversity. In addition to the above mentioned, I have detailed other revisions in the following sections.
Experimental design: 1.	Do you have any baseline data on bacterial diversity and composition 10 years prior to the study?
2.	Do you have data on bacterial or chemical composition shifts during this 10 years of time?
3.	What is the rationale of sampling 2 years?
4.	Aim implies study aimed at comparing changes in soil bacterial diversity over 10 years of time. However, the subsequent sections imply study of soil bacterial diversity on land that was organically managed for 10 years. I would suggest re-writing the sentence to be more clear for the readers.
Validity of the findings: 1.	Would the effect of bacterial diversity you have seen in organically managed grasslands would remain same if these are converted to croplands in future (organic management)?
2.	Were the bacterial sequences of OTUs deposited in NCBI for access?
3.	Proteobacteria are the dominant bacterial groups in general in most of the soil samples. Did you look at sub-classes like a-proteobacteria, b-proteobacteria and g-proteobacteria? Looking at sub-classes might give more insights. Please refer to Davinic, Marko, et al. "Pyrosequencing and mid-infrared spectroscopy reveal distinct aggregate stratification of soil bacterial communities and organic matter composition." Soil Biology and Biochemistry 46 (2012): 63-72.
4.	In the lines 122-123 soil description was cited. Soil type greatly affect microbial composition. Did you see any relationship between soil type and bacterial diversity in literature with similar soils?
5.	In the lines 202-203 it was said that greengenes database was used to classify OTU’s. Which bioinformatics pipeline was used to blast the sequences to classify?
6.	In Figure 3 based on community composition differences, it is shown that samples collected in July and August are distinct in organic pasture lands. However, no such results were given in results section and also not discussed. Can you explain why soil bacterial community composition differed between july and august? Did you look if this effect is consistently seen in both the years or if any one particular year driving these changes? The bacterial diversity indices (Fig.2) were also distinct between july and august samples (organic pasture lands). Is there any particular bacterial group or sampling year driving these changes? Based on figure1, Bacteroidetes group were enriched in July (organic) samples compared to August. Bacteroidetes tend to grow under high resource rich enrichment. Please look into this and add supporting literature.
Additional comments: I recommend this paper for publication with minor changes as listed in the above sections.
1.	How would this study help farmer’s community in future? How does your study help in taking management policies or decisions?
2.	QIIME is the most commonly used pipeline for metagenomics data analysis. Caporaso, J. Gregory, et al. "QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data." Nature methods 7.5 (2010): 335-336.
My understanding is in this paper authors Acharya et al used several different bioinformatics tools to process and analyze sequencing data. Any specific reason for this approach instead of using most commonly used QIIME?
3.	Lamb and sheep are interchangeably used in introduction and discussion sections. I would recommend consistency in using the terms.
4.	In a recently published article it was shown that, rare microbiome has the potential of effecting soil functionality especially in fertilized lands. Did you look into the rare microbiome in your data set? Chen, Qing-Lin, et al. "Rare microbial taxa as the major drivers of ecosystem multifunctionality in long-term fertilized soils." Soil Biology and Biochemistry 141 (2020): 107686.
5.	Suggest to rewrite line 391 (It is because their gram-positive cell wall 391 structure allows these organisms to withstand drier conditions).


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: SOIL MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN ORGANIC AND NON-ORGANIC PASTURE SYSTEMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors compared soil bacterial diversity between organic and inorganic pasture ecosystems in this research. I already accept this paper. Paper is well written and now in revised version, paper is strengthened with more and latest literature on soil bacterial communities, their effect of plant species etc. I am satisfied and accept this paper to be published in Peer J.
Experimental design: Experimental planning using Illumina 16S rRNA gene amplicons followed by bioinformatics are enough to collect required data
Validity of the findings: This research focused on effects of organic pasture management on the soil microbiome for sustainable forage production as soil microbiome diversity contributes to improved nutrient cycling, soil structure, plant growth, and environmental resiliency. As previously soil microbes and their function under pasture grazing system was poorly investigated. I recommend this study for possible publication.
Additional comments: I recommend acceptance for possible publication in journal PeerJ.


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: SOIL MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN ORGANIC AND NON-ORGANIC PASTURE SYSTEMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Additional comments: Congratulations to all authors. I have read the revised version, and I am satisfied with the revision and response. Therefore, I recommend this paper for publication.

Regards,
Muhammad Ali Raza (Ph.D.)


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: SOIL MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN ORGANIC AND NON-ORGANIC PASTURE SYSTEMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: well explained and well structured.
Validity of the findings: conclusions are well linked to the study results and will be a good addition to the subject
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: SOIL MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN ORGANIC AND NON-ORGANIC PASTURE SYSTEMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: Acharya et al compared soil bacterial diversity between organic and inorganic pasture ecosystems and overall, paper is well written with relevant literature cited and I recommend this research for publication. Authors have addressed all the questions of my review and made changes as per suggestions.
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: THE RISE IN CLIMATE CHANGE-INDUCED FEDERAL FISHERY DISASTERS IN THE UNITED STATES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	The manuscript is well-written and thorough.

2.	A figure showing a timeline with the numbers of disaster declarations per year, and then overlaid timeline of some specific environmental events (e.g. marine heatwaves, HABs, hurricanes), would be a useful illustration for this paper to demonstrate some of the specific events as discussed in the paper.

3.	Table 1 caption: In describing the ‘combination’ causes, which often have multiple causes, clarify that this may include a combination of anthropogenic and environmental causes specifically, and maybe give an example or two of how those might interact (for example, overfishing and marine heatwaves). As written, it seems like a repetitive list from the two previous categories.

4.	Table 2: It would be helpful to have some sort of timeline (see #2), because this table conveys the message that anthropogenic events have been more important because they have caused greater economic impacts. Also interesting is that this seems to vary by region, with anthropogenic causes dominating in Alaska and the Greater Atlantic regions, and environmental causes dominating in the Southeast and West Coast regions.

5.	Figure 1: This figure requires a key for the symbols and agency logos. These are difficult to read, and would not be understandable to a non-American audience

6.	Figure 2: These regions each need to be labeled on the map particularly for those not familiar with American geography and the NOAA regions
Experimental design: 1.	This paper is not laid out as addressing a clear and specific research question.  The research question is more implicit within the paper than described explicitly. The research question seems to be to understand how the frequency and type of federal fisheries disasters has changed since the inception of the program. This should be explicitly spelled out in the introduction. Additionally, the manuscript does not provide sufficient rationale for why this was being studied. The manuscript makes it clear that this is important, but does not specifically identify a knowledge gap being filled by this research. I suggest the Introduction should be modified to be more explicit about exactly why this research is being conducted and what purpose it serves beyond providing the basis of advocating for changes to this process.
Validity of the findings: 1.	Were there any disasters declared because of marine heatwaves prior to 2012/13? Is this a new phenomenon, or a new framing of something that has led to disaster declarations in the past? How do the data on environmental causes compare when looking at the trend in just hurricanes and HABs? Do marine heatwaves explain that difference? I think it might be useful to talk about marine heatwaves specifically and explain their relationship to fishery disasters because a) they make up the greatest percentage of the disasters, and b) they have the strongest link to climate change.

2.	Lines 401-406: I read your methods to mean that you used NOAA data to extrapolate from the disaster declaration to estimate losses beyond what is provided in the disaster declaration itself, but this was not entirely clear. Can you clarify that this is what you did, and that this is required because this data is not provided by NOAA?

3.	Lines 349-351: It seems that this is at least in part more specifically due to the implementation of quotas in most federal fisheries, which make overfishing less likely. Please include a citation here that says more explicitly that fisheries management is improving, rather than just one demonstrating that fewer stocks are experiencing overfishing.

4.	Lines 479-480: It is understood that you did not include COVID disasters as part of your analysis because those have not yet been determined and allocated. How would this fit into your analysis – what type of disaster would you consider COVID? If this is a purely anthropogenic disaster (which I would argue), will this skew your results suggesting the shift toward environmentally-driven disasters in recent years? It may be worth discussing how this may or may not upset the trend you describe.

5.	Lines 174-176: Specify that the frequency of disasters will vary by management zone in part because different regions are more likely to experience different types of disasters (e.g. hurricanes are not likely to hit the West Coast and Alaska).

6.	Line 428-431: “Transparent, detailed, and mechanistic descriptions of economic impacts…” Of course, if NOAA is required to provide these, conducting a full economic impact on each fishery to determine a disaster declaration, this is likely to slow down, not speed up the process of declaring a disaster. How do you propose this could be done without further lagging behind the event? Please either suggest this, or note that this may be incompatible with your goal of speeding up the process.

7.	Lines 394-397: Can you expound on why or how those fisheries experienced an increase in revenue? Is this because of switching to other species? Or because of the challenge of parsing out the specific impacts of the disaster from the total revenue gained in that fishery at a larger spatial or temporal scale? This is mentioned twice in the manuscript, so please clarify what it means or how you interpret this finding.
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 RISE IN CLIMATE CHANGE-INDUCED FEDERAL FISHERY DISASTERS IN THE UNITED STATES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see general comments
Experimental design: Please see general comments
Validity of the findings: Please see general comments
Additional comments: In this manuscript, the authors used data about fishery disaster declarations and revenue in the US to examine the impact of climate change on fisheries. Key claimed findings include disasters increasing over time and more attributed to climate change.

The manuscript provides some detailed information about fisheries and disaster management in relation to fisheries in the US. However, I feel it is not at the standard of an academic publication, and I hope the authors will find my general comments below useful.

1.	The paper is not clear about its contribution to the knowledge base. It could better answer the question ‘why should the audience read this?’,  ‘what lessons could be learnt from the findings?’, or ‘what are the insights it provides to decision-makers or for developing a new framework or theory?’. Being clear about the contribution is important when key results not new. In fact, the negative impact of climate change on fisheries around the world has been mentioned in every FAO’s biennial publication ‘The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture’ since 2000.

2.	It looks like the authors have managed to collect information about all disaster declarations that have been recognised by the US government in the 1989-2020 period. If the dataset used in the analysis (i.e., Poisson regressions and bootstrapping) includes all recognised declarations, the statistical techniques have probably been overused. In this case, the dataset can be seen as a population, and the population mean (or median) of the revenue loss can be calculated directly, without a statistical model. Estimates and their confidence intervals are needed when the dataset only contains a fraction (sample) of the population while statisticians wanted to have an idea of the population mean. Likewise, whether the number of disasters and the number of disasters caused by environmental factors increased over time (the key results of the paper) can be directly evaluated from the population rather than fitting a statistical model to the data.

3.	There are some other smaller issues worth editing effort or further consideration. I just list some examples here. In Figure 3, the number of data points inside the 95% confidence interval is far less than the number of data points outside – which is not consistent with the intuition of the confidence interval. The presentation of the technical contents is not careful – it assumes readers know R syntax. Line 70 lists data limitation as a cause of fishery declines – which is not clear (perhaps, the authors meant data limitation contributed to poor management which, in turn, resulted in overfishing).


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 ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY OF SILVER ACETATE AGAINST ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII IN A GALLERIA MELLONELLA INFECTION MODEL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Professional English has been used throughout the manuscript, some words are ambiguous and not clear. For example in line 42 (B. Braun Melsungen AG)(Getinge AB)
2. Literature references are not properly provided. For example, this reference is fine(Atiyeh et al., 2007)(Politano et al., 2013), but in lines 43 and 44 (Politano et al.,
44 2013)(Chopra, 2007), 2007 reference should be first. There should be uniformity in the literature references throughout the manuscript. Similarly this reference (McQueary & Actis, 2011)(Coenye et al., 2008). The references are not properly structured and have no sufficient field background.
3. The legends in the figures are not properly describing the figures. The fonts of the legends are different than the manuscript fonts.
4. The results are supporting, however there is weakness in the articles, as the control is just water and treatment is silveracetate, the silveracetate should be applied along with other positive controls for example commercial antibiotics against which bacteria were stilll not resistant.
Experimental design: 1. The research is original within aims and scope of the journal.
2. Research question is well defined however along with silver acetate there should be one or two commercial antibiotics.
3. Lines 152-153, is not clear,  1.25 to 80 mg kg-1 animal weight. Controls included injection with the same volume of water and a non-injected group.
5. Investigation performed is not highly technical and ethically standard for example lines 157 and 158 lines are not clear Following the same general method as for inoculum testing 20 larvae were injected with 10 µl of 1.7 x 106 CFU per larvae of A. baumannii.
6. Treatment assays is confusing, the authors should describe with sufficient detail. Information should be properly added how many repeats, as there were 20 larvae, why not 50? why not 100?
Validity of the findings: 1. Legends of the figures are not highly descriptive, as silver acetate is nowadays widely used, therefore the research not seem to be novel.
2. 166-169 These paragraph is ambiguous, five strains of A. baumannii were tested against varying concentrations of the metal salt to determine the minimum inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations for each strain. Silver acetate proved to be a potent antimicrobial with the compound having a minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 4.56 ± 1.59 mg L-1 or less for 169 all strains tested (Table 1).
3. Conclusion is well stated that silver acetate may be effective to improve the survival of Galleria mellonella infected with otherwise lethal doses of A. baumannii.
4. Silver acetate is effective and what about the commercial antibiotics as positive controls, positive controls are missing.
5. Larvae from one source or from one company, why not from diverse areas or companies, might be the larvae are resistance to silver acetate as well as bacterial strains.
6. Why only bacterial strains of one species A. baumannii and why not authors have incorporated diverse type of bacterial strains?
Additional comments: 1. You have used silver acetate to improve the survival of Galleria mellonella against lethal doses of A. baumannii, however silver acetate is only one nonantibiotics and there are no positive controls, there should be one or two commercial antibiotics.
2. You have used lethal doses of various A. baumanni, but not incorporated few of other bacterial species.
3. The larvae of the Galleria mellonella were purchased from one company or one area. What about the other larvae of the same species but might be genetically different.
4. These experiments should be repeated thrice, however only one experiment and no repeats.
5. In conclusion, your research is though novel however due to lack of proper replicates, diverse type of bacterial strains and diverse type of larvae, and  absence of commercial antibiotics as positive controls, I suggest to resubmit again with proper answers of my questions.


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

Input:
Title: THE ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY OF SILVER ACETATE AGAINST ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII IN A GALLERIA MELLONELLA INFECTION MODEL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written in clear unambiguous language
Experimental design: More experiments is needed to ameliorate the manuscript for example investigate the effect of the tested salt on CRAB biofilm.
Validity of the findings: The study lacks of novelty
Additional comments: Here the authors described the efficacy of silver acetate against carbapenem resistant Acinetobacter baumannii using Galleria mellonella larvae model to assess the toxicity and the efficacy of this silver salt.  Authors report the selective toxicity of silver acetate for bacterial pathogens.  This is study lack of novelty. To me this work is quite insufficient in term of results, to be published as an original article.


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 ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY OF SILVER ACETATE AGAINST ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII IN A GALLERIA MELLONELLA INFECTION MODEL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

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


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

Input:
Title: STABLE ISOTOPE AND FATTY ACID ANALYSES REVEAL SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN TROPHIC NICHES OF SMOOTH HAMMERHEAD SPHYRNA ZYGAENA (CARCHARHINIFORMES) AMONG THREE NURSERY AREAS IN NORTHERN HUMBOLDT CURRENT SYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There are many figures and tables, and I suggest some reorganization in General comments.
Experimental design: The methodology to fix the samples prior to stable isotopes and fatty acids analyses is not clear/justify, as indicated in the General comments.
Validity of the findings: The conclusion should explore more the applicability of the results in local fishery management, as indicated in the General comments.
Additional comments: The manuscript adds important information that can be applied to fisheries management in Peru in relation to an endangered shark species. I have some comments/suggestions to be considered by the authors.
Figures and tables: There are many figures and tables. Join the table 1 and 2 in a single table; join fig. 6 and 7 in a single fig. (a and b, for instance); fig. 2 can be excluded because numerical data were already included in the main text.
Abstract:
Lines 30-36: The abstract 'introduction' is too long. Only one or two phrases are enough here.
Introduction:
lines 64-65: 'nowadays' with a reference of 2005? 15 years ago? Update the reference to support the information.
lines 66-67: Include the most recent IUCN reference about the species status.
Methodology:
lines 117-118: What is ProDelphinus NGO? Please, explain.
line 133: You mentioned 'fish species', but in fig. 5 there is the jumbo squid. Revise it here and along the text.
line 135: How do you know that 80% ethanol will not affect the isotopes and fatty acids resuls? You have to support it by references that tested it.
lines 137-139: Why are the sample sizes (liver vs. muscle) different? Please, explain. And about the sample sizes of other fish and squid?
line 188: The reference Kim et al. 2012 is not in the list. Why did you choose these values as discrimination factors?
Results:
lines 211-230: It is a long paragraph. Please, reorganize it.
Discussion:
lines 259-264: You only repeat the results here. Exclude this part from the text.
lines 266-267: It is a conclusion, and not a discussion.
lines 289-292: 13C is not a good tracer for trophic position. So, soften these phrases. Moreover, nothins is discussed about 15N, the most important stable isotope to evaluate trophic position. Discuss it here.
lines 301-302 and lines 327-388: Repeat the same information. Reorganize the text.
lines 326-336: You only repeat information from previous paragraphs. This subitem is not necessary in the ms.
lines 337-350: It sounds like a 'conclusion', but the reader will expect much more here. You have to show the real applicability of your results. Be more especific in what way your data will improve the local fishery management. Suggest some actions that can be done now, for instance. Describe the action (monitoring, regular sampling, etc), people involved (fishers, researchers, local government, etc) and expected results (delimiting or regulate fishing areas, track the sharks origin, etc).


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

Input:
Title: STABLE ISOTOPE AND FATTY ACID ANALYSES REVEAL SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN TROPHIC NICHES OF SMOOTH HAMMERHEAD SPHYRNA ZYGAENA (CARCHARHINIFORMES) AMONG THREE NURSERY AREAS IN NORTHERN HUMBOLDT CURRENT SYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: Interestingly, the authors were cautious regarding the influences of lipids and urea on elasmobranchs, however they did attest that the samples were preserved in 80% ethanol, which is known to alter isotopic signatures, mainly for δ13C (Kelly et al. 2006; Kim & Koch, 2012). Therefore, the authors must consider this potential bias in the overall interpretation of results.
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: Here is my review of the ms 55838v1 by Segura-Cobeña et al. investiganting with stable isotope coupled with fatty acids data juvenile smooth hammerhead trophic niche of Humboldt Current System region of Peru. The informations are sound and improve the knowledge regarding nursery areas for sharks. Overall, I feel that the manuscript needs to be edited by authors in some questions about backgroud/context and hypothesis, sample treatment and interpretation of results that I describe below. For these reasons, I feel that a major revision and further round of peer review is necessary before this manuscript will be potentially suitable for publication.

General comments:
1- Some of the literature references should be updated by the authors. For example, the state of shark fin exporters in the world presented in the ms was from 15 years ago (line 64-65). Authors should present recent literature about this (last 5 years). Dent & Clark (2015) report regarding the state of the global market for shark products would be helpfull for the authors.

2- The ms lack of relevant results that sustain the hypothesis proposed by the authors. It was hypothesized that each nursery area is influenced by different water masses and, therefore, characterized by different environmental conditions, but the authors just presented that Máncora is located in the Tropical East Pacific Marine Province (TEP-MP), while San José and Salaverry are located in Warm Temperate Southeastern Pacific Marina Province (WTSP-MP). It was highlighted that WTSP-MP areas are characterized by high productivity driven by the Humboldt Current System (HCS) and high fish biomass and diversity, but no indication of possible differentes between WTSP-MP areas was presented to sustain the hypothesis. Additionally, it would be interesting the authors provide a short characterization of both water masses.

3- Regarding raw data, it seems the authors did not translated the acronym “M” that means “Mujer” to “F” that means “Female”, as well “H” that means “Hombre” to “M” that means “Male”. The authors have sex information for Máncora, but for San José and Salaverry. It seems there is no variation between sex within the same sampling area, but there is little variation between sex isotopes among the WTSP-MP areas. I took the liberty of calculating the δ13C and δ15N averages for each tissue and the isotopic variations cannot be neglected, especially that of δ13C in the liver ~ 2 ‰ between females. The muscle (San José: δ13Cfemale = -15.6, δ13Cmale = -15.7, δ15Nfemale = 16.0 and δ15Nmale = 15.8 ‰; Salaverry: δ13Cfemale = -16.4, δ13Cmale = -16.4, δ15Nfemale = 15.6 and δ15Nmale = 15.9 ‰) and liver (San José: δ13Cfemale = -17.0, δ13Cmale = -17.6, δ15Nfemale = 14.5 and δ15Nmale = 14.4 ‰; Salaverry: δ13Cfemale = -19.0, δ13Cmale = -18.5, δ15Nfemale = 14.2 and δ15Nmale = 14.2 ‰) data must be analyzed, interpreted and presented by the authors in the ms.

5- Discussion:
5.1. Characterization of isotopic niche variation variation among nursery areas - The authors refer to some previous studies in the literature, but do not provide clear evidence specific to this system to define the ENSO cycles niether the Oxygen Minimum Zone (OMZ) related to HCS for these nursery areas. Do any of these previous studies clearly identify them and/or present value ranges?

5.2. Characterization of FA profiles variation among nursery areas - The authors refer to some previous studies in the literature, but do not provide clear evidence specific to this system to define the FA for these three nursery areas.  Do any of these previous studies clearly identify the FA for HCS and coastal upwelling?

5.3. Characterization of oceanic vs. coastal waters - The authors do not refer to any previous studies in the literature, and do not provide clear evidence specific to this system to define the δ13C end members for these two potential carbon sources. Do any previous studies clearly identify end members signals for oceanic and coastal waters inputs for this region?

Line-by-Line Comments:
Line 66 to 69: The IUCN Red List reference is also outdated. The doi took me to an actual IUCN Red List webpage that should be cited as "Rigby, C.L., Barreto, R., Carlson, J., Fernando, D., Fordham, S., Herman, K., Jabado, R.W., Liu, K.M., Marshall, A., Pacoureau, N., Romanov, E., Sherley, R.B. & Winker, H. 2019. Sphyrna zygaena. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T39388A2921825."

Line 74: Start a new paragraph in: “In the context of nature conservation,...”.

Line 124-125: Informations regarding El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) were not presented in this ms. The authors argue temperature and chlorophyll-a were stable despite seasonal variability related to ENSO. This data and absence of correlation should be presented in text and/or Supplementary Material.

Line 133-134: Were the sympatric species captured in the same period than Smooth Hammerhead?

Line 134: Change “that are captured” to “that are usually captured”.

Line 211: “The highest mean δ13C values” - The authors must specify if it is mean ± standard deviation (SD), mean ± standard error (SE) or mean ± confidence interval (CI).

Line 227-230: “These differences were consistent between results based on muscle and liver tissues. Sympatric fish species captured in all nursery areas were characterized by carbon signatures consistently enriched in 13C compared to carbon signatures of Smooth Hammerhead juveniles from the same areas (Fig 5)”. - Why authors plotted only liver tissue isotopic signatures of 13C and 15N of Smooth Hammerhead with muscle tissue of sympatric species?

Lines 237-243: I suggest authors to include Shannon diversity (H’) values and statistics informations in Table 3.

Lines 246-249: I suggest authors to include a table with permanova informations.

Tables 1 and 2 should be joined in a single table.

Title of Table 3: Authors should consider revision of Table 3 informations. Acronyms are not compatible with the acronyms shown in the table.
Legend of Table 3: “(two-way ANDEVA, P < 0.05)” - What is ANDEVA? I think authors meant ANOVA.

References:
Dent, F. & Clarke, S. (2015) State of the global market for shark products.
FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 590. Rome, FAO. 187 pp .

Kelly, B., Dempson, J.B. and Power, M. (2006) The effects of preservation on fish tissue stable isotope signatures. Journal of Fish Biology, 69: 1595-1611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2006.01226.x

Kim, S.L., Koch, P.L. (2012) Methods to collect, preserve, and prepare elasmobranch tissues for stable isotope analysis. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 95: 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-011-9860-9


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: STABLE ISOTOPE AND FATTY ACID ANALYSES REVEAL SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN TROPHIC NICHES OF SMOOTH HAMMERHEAD SPHYRNA ZYGAENA (CARCHARHINIFORMES) AMONG THREE NURSERY AREAS IN NORTHERN HUMBOLDT CURRENT SYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: All suggestions did in the first version of the manuscript were considered by the authors in this version or properly justified. This new version meets all the criteria of PeerJ and can be accept in the present form.
Experimental design: All suggestions did in the first version of the manuscript were considered by the authors in this version or properly justified. This new version meets all the criteria of PeerJ and can be accept in the present form.
Validity of the findings: All suggestions did in the first version of the manuscript were considered by the authors in this version or properly justified. This new version meets all the criteria of PeerJ and can be accept in the present form.
Additional comments: All suggestions did in the first version of the manuscript were considered by the authors in this version or properly justified. This new version meets all the criteria of PeerJ and can be accept in the present 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: STABLE ISOTOPE AND FATTY ACID ANALYSES REVEAL SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN TROPHIC NICHES OF SMOOTH HAMMERHEAD SPHYRNA ZYGAENA (CARCHARHINIFORMES) AMONG THREE NURSERY AREAS IN NORTHERN HUMBOLDT CURRENT SYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The ms. 55838 by Segura-Cobeña et al. combines stable isotopes and fatty acids to address the trophic niches of smooth hummerhead among three nursery areas. I would like to congratulate the authors for the work done and for the consideration they had for my earlier comments. As a result, they largely improved the quality of the ms., notably as they succeed to efficiently support their hypothesys regarding spatial variation among HCS provinces and, as well, efficiently discussion their results, with clear characterization of isotopic niche variation among nursery areas and oceanic vs. coastal waters.

Minor comments:
Line 134: Acronyms must be specified: National Government Organization (NGO)
Lines 378 - 381: “We still found the results of muscle tissue analyses worth presenting as the fatty acid profiles that we found in liver tissues were similar to profiles found in muscle tissue found in the same individuals and, as expected, the concentrations in liver tissue were higher” - The authors use “found” repetedly in the same sentence. Please rewrite it.


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 DIFFERENT RESISTANCE TRAINING FREQUENCIES ON BODY COMPOSITION AND MUSCULAR PERFORMANCE ADAPTATIONS IN MEN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was written in a clear manner that was easy to follow, and professionally presented throughout.

Several suggestions that may improve the quality of the manuscript follow:

In the abstract:
- It may be useful to include ES's for the changes in 1RM bench press and arm curl for the 2x and 4x groups so the magnitude of this significant change is clear (lines 42-44).
- Ensure you are clear that the four sessions produced a greater gain in strength for the upper body measures only (lines 45-46).

In the methods:
- Change "In randomized-controlled..." to "In a randomized-controlled..." (line 91).
- Add a comma after "n = XX" is stated for both the 2 times group (line 105) and 4 times group (line 107)
- "instructed" may be a better word that "oriented" (line 122).
- Be consistent in use of a space (or no space) between numbers and "%" symbols (e.g. line 148 vs line 151).
- Ensure brackets are included around the Mpost - Mpre in the hedges g formula (line 181).

In the results:
- Change "...statistically significant increases for..." to "...statistically significant differences between..." in lines 202-203.
- Change "...significantly increases..." to "...significant increases..." in lines 199, 206, 212, and 217.

In the discussion:
- Change "show" to "shown" in line 251.
- Change "...occurred than muscular hypertrophy" to "...occurred, not only muscular hypertrophy" (line 265)
- Saying "more exposure to" may be more appropriate than "more time" in line 279.

In the conclusion:
- "adequate" may be a better word choice than "suitable" in line 309.

In the tables:
- In Table 2, I would suggest a different word than "significant" for the final column, perhaps "statistics"
- In Table 3, use superscript for a, c, b, and d, in your notes when defining the key used.

In the figures:
- In Figure 2, it may be useful to briefly state the reasons for the five subjects being removed.
Experimental design: Overall the experiment was well designed, including the two experimental groups as well as a control group. I also liked the use of dietary control, ensuring the participants were educated and kept on track here - an often overlooked (or under controlled) aspect of training studies.

I have several queries/suggestions for this section:
- The ICC of tests is stated as r ≥ 0.95 (lines 99-100), was this for all tests? Please state  this, or for which tests specifically.
- The 2 times per week group initially weighed 64.2 ±5.7 kg and the 4 times per week group initially weighed 70.6 ±8.2 kg (lines 106-108); were the groups checked for differences at baseline?
- How was the height measured for the MBT? (line 159-163).
- Where the RM training prescriptions initially prescribed as percentages? Or were these RM's tested prior to the study? (line 168 and Table 1).
Validity of the findings: - I would be cautious in your statements in lines 243-245. You found no significant differences between groups for muscle size, thus I don't think you can make this assumption, regarding 2x per week resulting in greater muscle size than 4x, with too much confidence.

- It would be worth providing further context, or information around what other authors have done, regarding your comments on lines 257-258 about measuring changes in muscle mass.

- Ensure you clearly state that changes you discuss were non-significant when discussing them, e.g. lines 284-285, this will ensure readers are aware these changes were not statistically significant.

- As comparing training frequencies effects on explosive actions was a novel aspect stated in the introduction, I would have liked to see more coverage of the results of training frequency on explosive actions in your discussion - even though they were not significant.
Additional comments: Thank you for your efforts in conducting this study and producing the manuscript. I trust the comments are useful in enhancing your 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: EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT RESISTANCE TRAINING FREQUENCIES ON BODY COMPOSITION AND MUSCULAR PERFORMANCE ADAPTATIONS IN MEN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There are a number of grammar errors throughout especially in the Discussion. Tables and figures are clear, and appropriate references are cited.
Experimental design: Some methods are missing. Volume load data should be included.
Validity of the findings: My major concern is that these subjects were not very trained. The authors claim they have at least 2 years of experience but their 1RMs were quite low.
Additional comments: General Comments
Overall, the study addresses an interesting topic. My major comments are:
1. Some key Methods are missing.
2. Volume load data should be presented and analyzed.
3. The quality of the Discussion needs to greatly improve. There are a number of grammar errors throughout and better extrapolation of the results could be presented.
4. Although the authors’ claim these were trained men, their 1RM values are relatively low for a trained population. Thus, it may be questionable if these results can be applied to trained populations.

Specific Comments
Abstract, line 33: should mention these were resistance-trained subjects.
Line 55: Other important variables are intensity, exercise selection and sequence, and velocity.
Line 72: should be “Gentil.”
Line 83: the sentence “while less is known regarding muscle explosive actions performance and endurance in intermediately trained subjects” is awkward and should be restated.
Line 88: here again and throughout, “explosive actions performance” is awkward – why not just state “power performance.”
Line 106: here and throughout it should be “mass (kg)” not “weight.”
Line 112: this sentence is a run-on but how were subjects screened for supplement or drug use? Questionnaire?  If so, did they quit prior to beginning or were they allowed to maintain use during study?
Line 125: should be “body mass.”
Line 128: no need to capitalize calipers. Should provide more detail. Were 2-3 skinfolds taken and averaged?
Line 140: more information should be provided for strength testing especially the leg press.  How many trials? Rest intervals? How was range of motion standardized for this exercise?  How was technique standardized for curl and BP?
Line 154: these are power measures, I suggest using the term “power” here and throughout. For Vertec, please provide the actual maker not the distributor. Power Systems is the distributor.
Line 136: what warm-up? Similar to previous warm-ups? More information is needed here.
Line 166: Technically the authors are referring to equated volume load, not volume. Volume just represents total reps. Volume load factors in loading. Thus, the term volume load should be used throughout.
Line 167: should be “…A 60 to 90 sec period of rest between sets…”
Line 168: I strongly recommend the authors include their volume load data for each group. It was stated no differences were observed between groups so the authors should include volume load data per week or at least first, middle, and last week plus the results of statistical analysis.
Line 191: should be “significant.” Same in line 199, 206, and 217.
Line 250-251: statement has grammar errors.
Discussion: there are a number of grammar errors throughout.


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 DIFFERENT RESISTANCE TRAINING FREQUENCIES ON BODY COMPOSITION AND MUSCULAR PERFORMANCE ADAPTATIONS IN MEN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript presents clear professional English. The authors present expertise on this field.
Experimental design: The authors report the study as randomized-controlled design, to endorse this design and be noted as low-risk bias for further potential inclusion in systematic reviews and meta-analysis, the authors needs to improve the description of some domains that weaken the design.

The authors most describe how and Who did the randomization of participants (for exemple: by random sequence generator; a researcher who did not participated of study) (Page 4, line 91).

The inclusion and exclusion criteria most be cleary described before description of participants characteristics.

Need to be reported the reason why 5 participants were removed from study, as show in figure 2.

On page 5, line 105, most include a coma after "(RT2; n = 12".

On page 6, lines 122-123, the authors describes "All subjects were oriented to continue with their normal daily life activities and dietary intake throughout the study duration.", however, on page 6, lines 133-139, a nutritional specialist meet the participant each training session to asses their customary nutritional regime (i.e., approximately 25% protein, 25% fat and 50% carbohydrate). Please, clarify how did the authors unidentified this customary nutritional regime, there was a retrospective nutritional asses (at least six-month) previously the study?

The authors did not present any nutritional result in study. Please, clarify the absence of this result, since was recorded.
Validity of the findings: To improve validity of the findings, the authors needs to clarify the two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures (3 [group] x 3 [time]), for exemplo, the Levine test was performed to confirm the homogeneity of variances? If yes, assumed the homogeneity? If no, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied?

Which statistical software was used to perform the analysis? Please, clarify these information.

On the results section, the authors needs simplify the description, for exemple, since present significantly interaction (group by time), there is not necessary describe the time and group effect separadely (the table shows from itself), it can confound the reader. Please, clarify this point.

On the discussion section (Page 10, lines 242-246) "Previous experimental studies reported two sessions per week RT induced small ES but in this study we found moderate increases in muscle size in arm, thigh and chest, suggesting benefits of two sessions per week RT for enhancing muscle size in comparison to RT4 (Gentil et al., 2015, Colquhoun et al., 2018; Zaroni et al., 2019; Yue et al., 2018).", why did the authors discuss the effect size found in experimental studies with the effect size in this current study (Human)? Please, clarify this point.

On page 10, lines 246-249, "The RT2 group performed 4 sets per exercise in each training session which may induce stimulation of muscular hypertrophy signalling pathways by increasing protein synthesis and providing mechanical stress in the muscle fibers in a greater magnitude than following the lower training volume during RT4 (Ogasawara et al., 2017).", Ogasawara et al. present that there is a relationship between high-volume resistance training and increase of protein synthesis, but the authors agree that the acute increase on protein synthesis promoted by resistance exercise may not reflect in chronic condition?

If suitable in this context, there is a recent paper (2019) regarding the chronic effect of resistance training on muscular hypertrophy signaling "Padilha CS, Cella PS, Ribeiro AS, et al. Moderate vs high-load resistance training on muscular adaptations in rats. Life Sci. 2019;238:116964.", if is not suitable for the discussion, please disregard.
Additional comments: It is a pleasure to read this study. The authors present several good and strong points regarding the frequencies with volume-equated. All points raise in this review addressed to the authors are entirely to improve, or at least try to, the scientific contribution in resistance training field.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT RESISTANCE TRAINING FREQUENCIES ON BODY COMPOSITION AND MUSCULAR PERFORMANCE ADAPTATIONS IN MEN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has improved in this area. I have no further comments.
Experimental design: The design is fine. I am glad the authors changed "resistance-trained" to "recreationally trained" given my previous comments questioning the strength level of these subjects.
Validity of the findings: No Comment
Additional comments: The manuscript has improved and I do not have any further edits. I am glad the authors changed subject status to "recreationally trained" as I feel it is more appropriate given their level of strength.


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: UNDERSTANDING EXPERIMENTS AND RESEARCH PRACTICES FOR REPRODUCIBILITY: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I would like first to thank the authors to investigate a such relevant problematic, as it directly impacts reliability of so many scientific findings. The text is globally well written, although authors should take more attention of the significance, usefulness and sourcing of their assertions.
However, the study is strongly impacted by a severe gap between design, results and conclusions.

***********************
MAJOR CONCERN: UNCLEAR JUSTIFICATION AND AIM OF THE STUDY
After a very expeditious introduction, the authors present a potential target for their study that seem appropriate at line 40: “it is imperative to understand the underlying causes [of the reproducibility crisis]”. However, some methods, results and conclusion elements of a survey are presented confusingly from lines 50 to 63 to finally introduce a new goal: building a list of recommendation for good practice. At this stage, the reader is  in a certain disarray. The following “Related works” paragraph gives the surprise to come back to the justification of the study. But, as the goals have already been presented, some elements are redundant with the introduction and it does not really clarify the study.

Authors should expose their study’s background and aims in an understandable way.

************************
MINOR CONCERNS:

* Introduction / Related Works:
  -  We understand the use of the “reproducibility crisis” expression as resumed from other works. We would have appreciate the authors to discuss its appropriateness. As they underline themselves, the problem of reproducibility in sciences experimentation dates back to Galileo whereas the term “crisis” implies a rupture: is there one ?
  - The existence of the different expressions “repeatability”, “reproducibility” and “replicability” is mentioned without lightening the reader on eventual differences, nor justifying their preference for “reproducibility”. Different approaches for reproducibility are given (l. 65-77) without discussing respective strengths and weaknesses. Authors should avoid presenting knowledge without using it for the sake of their study.
  - The definition of reproducibility finally exposed is issued from authors’ prior works: is it validated ?
  - Only one reported study evokes some potential cause for lack of reproducibility. We would strongly expect a further screening in this way – as it is the main subject.
  - Papers reported seem mainly issued from the research area of the authors. They should enlarge their literature screening (what about qualitative approaches ?). In the same way, we expect more than two references when talking about “many tools [have been developed] l. 104.
 - Many prior guidelines and recommendations are cited (l. 101 - 121): what are their strengths and weaknesses ? What is their impact ? What justifies to make another one ?

* Full paper:
  - Authors should avoid describing the role of each section as the reader already is expecting it (l. 56-63, l.127-129, l.189-190, etc.).
  - A better attention should be given to figures and tables title, description and correspondence to the text: table 5 do not mention the items to identify them from table 1, table 4 shows 5 columns when the authors introduce a 6-points scale at line 221, figures 5 and 8 have a title twice, etc.
  - Supplementary Material is mentioned twice in the results: where can we read it ?
  - A Binder repository is mentioned to reproduce the survey results, but its exact URL is not given ?
  - Authors should avoid giving assertions without references (l.350, l. 403, etc.)
Experimental design: ************************
MAJOR CONCERNS:

1/ NO METHOD IS GIVEN ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATION & GUIDELINES GOAL. Such a target would at least require to conduce a systematic review of literature with in-depth methods for extracting relevant and/or validated items. As a consequence, title, results and conclusions are inappropriate.

2/ RESULTS AND METHODS OF THE SURVEY ARE CONFUSINGLY MIXED, INCLUDING NUMEROUS LACKS. In particular, authors do not report the method used for the choice of the questions submitted to the participants. As a consequence, the reliability of the study cannot be assessed.

************************
MINOR CONCERNS:

* Methods
  - The “Questionnaire development” section would come up to the “Questionnaire” section.
  - The questionnaire is said to include 6 sections whereas Table 1 shows 5: what about Privacy policy ?
  - Table 1: the “question content” column shows summarized items whereas only a few of full items are disclosed across the Results section. Authors should deliver complete information already in the methods.
  - According to the “current position”, the sum of the participants exposed in lines 174-178 only raise 91% and their label do not match Table 2. Authors should avoid duplicating data. When tables already include detailed results, text should only underline important outcomes and clarify obscure points.

* Results
  - The data analysis is not exposed a priori in the methods. Line 200-208, some sub-groups percentages are given partially, without presentation of the complete data. First we may question the relevancy of percentage for such little samples. Second we wonder why such a sub-group description is not performed for other items.
  - l. 205 and figure 2: we discover a questionnaire part not mentioned in the methods ! What about the “other” free text item results ?
  - l. 217-223: methods in results.
  - Table 5: the title mention “metadata” sharing: does this explain the 10% responses “not applicable” for raw data ? If so, what are “raw data metadata” ?
  - l. 301: details ?
Validity of the findings: ************************
MAJOR CONCERNS:

1/ STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ARE NOT DISCUSSED. As a consequence, the validity and the scope of the findings cannot be assessed.
  - The survey link was mostly distributed within the area of the University of Jena, Germany, and only completed by a small sample of participants. To what extent these findings fit to other researchers all around the world ?
  - How many excluded participants filled their research context skipping the rest of the questionnaire ? Which were their research areas ? Could it explain a recruitment bias ?
  - The definition of “reproducibility” seems controversial. Why the way proposed by this study would be better than others ?
  - Many guidelines have already been proposed. In what this study brings novelty ?
  - The lack of time has been pointed out by participant to perform well reproducible studies. Are these recommendations in accordance with such a constraint ?
  - etc.

2/ MANY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GIVEN WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION. “Storage and backup”, “use of collaboration tools”, “use of versioning systems”, etc. : even if these statements seem full of common sense, no justification for them based neither on this study’s results nor on the literature is given. As a consequence, they are unacceptable.

************************
MINOR CONCERNS:
  - we would have liked the authors discuss the particular case of sensible information when dealing with reproducibility by sharing raw data;
  - many items of the given recommendations are overlapped and confusingly exposed including general principles as well as particular tools.
Additional comments: I believe this study raises very interesting and constructive findings to improve the scientific research production.
However, the results largely exceed the findings, on which authors have to fit their entire report (title, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion and summary). The building of some “guidelines” in addition to the survey report and analysis is self-defeating. It causes confusions in the whole study and severely impairs quality.
Some recommendations may be given at all, provided they are based on reliable and controlled statements, and only as suggestions in the opening part of the conclusion. If authors really want to go further in this way, they should consider performing a dedicated well-conduced study.