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: USING HIGH-RESOLUTION MELTING TO IDENTIFY CALLIPHORIDAE (BLOWFLIES) SPECIES FROM BRAZIL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is very well written and the literature cited is sufficient. Figures and tables are good.
Experimental design: The article offers an important methodology to be used to differentiate insect species of forensic interest and
Validity of the findings: The results are well-founded and the text presents a good discussion just like the conclusion.
Additional comments: Calliphorids are very similar and therefore the use of methodologies that can differentiate the species is always very important.

I missed the article to include quotes from works that use scanning electron microscopy to differentiate species in both immature and adult stages so it is also an important tool.


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: USING HIGH-RESOLUTION MELTING TO IDENTIFY CALLIPHORIDAE (BLOWFLIES) SPECIES FROM BRAZIL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting manuscript using Barcoding coupled with HRM analysis for forensic analysis and identification of insects. The manuscript is well written and the authors have used English proofreading. The introduction is describing the problem and the methods. The literature is adequate and the figures and tables describe clearly the results and the method
Experimental design: The experiments are appropriately designed. The question is well defined and the methodology to answer is appropriate. what is not clear it is that there are no replicates for the HRM and no triplicates indicated for each sample which should be. Each sample should run in triplicate, (biological or/and technical triplicates)
Validity of the findings: The results are robust except for the replicates and triplicates that the authors should provide, the authors should also provide the confidence value for each sample run in the HRM
Additional comments: The authors state in line 15 ancient DNA but this is only DNA from stored dried samples, the authors should change the word. In lines 56-57 and in the discussion the authors refer to the pros of the HRM but they should also refer the cons and the constrains of the method. Lines 129-130 need clarification


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: ADDITION OF L-CYSTEINE TO THE N- OR C-TERMINUS OF THE ALL-D-ENANTIOMER [D(KLAKLAK)2] INCREASES ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITIES AGAINST MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA, ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII AND ESCHERICHIA COLI
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The report is easy to read, relevant references are included.

The manuscript investigates how the addition of L-cysteine to a known antimicrobial peptide (in complete D-configuration) improves the antibacterial effect against certain Gram-negative pathogens and retains synergistic activity in combination with colistin. The scope of this work is rather limited by focusing on one peptide sequence. It would be interesting to explore whether incorporation of thiol residues into antimicrobial peptides is a more general strategy to improve the antibacterial effect of antimicrobial peptides.

Why was L-cysteine incorporated into the peptide sequence ?  The D-cysteine likely would enhance metabolic stability. This is not clear.

Very little information was provided why the incorporation of L-cysteine enhances the antibacterial effect. ?
Experimental design: The experiments performed follow previously established standard protocols. Peptides were purchased and MIC, checkerboard studies and toxicity studies were performed using standard protocols.
Validity of the findings: I was unable to locate data that confirm complete disulfide formation of the dimeric peptides (MS spectra should be provided). It is usually standard to show the HPLC profiles of the purified peptides to demonstrate purity even when the peptides were purchased.
Additional comments: The scope is rather limited. It would be nice to see that this approach can be transferred to other antimicrobial peptides.

There is little understanding for the observed effect. In absence of mechanistic studies the results remain unexplained and do not enhance understanding.

Incorporation of D-amino acids into peptides can increase metabolic stability and proteolysis but why selecting L-cysteine instead of D-cysteine needs to be explained.

The synergistic effect of the thiol-modified peptides with other antibiotics could be investigated. For instance rifampicin and novobiocin are usually potentiated by antimicrobial peptides and it would be interesting to explore whether the effect is retained.


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: ADDITION OF L-CYSTEINE TO THE N- OR C-TERMINUS OF THE ALL-D-ENANTIOMER [D(KLAKLAK)2] INCREASES ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITIES AGAINST MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA, ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII AND ESCHERICHIA COLI
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in clear, unambiguous English with only minor typographical points observed as listed below. The abstract is clear and concise, and the introduction provides a good background to all areas that the manuscript investigates and is supported by the relevant literature. The manuscript is self-contained with all discussion points relevant to the results and the results are clearly relevant to the aims of the manuscript. Tables and figures are generally well presented but with some minor omissions that should be addressed (see elsewhere in the review). The manuscript is self-contained with all relevant information provided.

Minor typographical points:
Abstract: line 36 “C-DP or DP-C” should be changed to “C-DP and DP-C”

Abstract: lines 39-40  “overexpressing the efflux” should be changed to “overexpressing efflux”

Abstract: line 49 “showed much stronger effects against” this should be altered to be more specific in describing what the stronger effect was e.g. stronger antimicrobial activity

Introduction: line 66 “thought to bind to cytoplasmic membrane” consider “thought to bind to the cytoplasmic membrane”

Results line 171: “but DP not against OCR1” suggested change to “but showed no antimicrobial activity against OCR1 within the tested concentration range” or similar to improve clarity.
Experimental design: This manuscript provides original primary research within the aims and scope of PeerJ. The human cell line HepG2 is described correctly with ATCC number provided. Methods are described with sufficient detail and information to replicate experiments. The research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap to further improve the efficacy of antimicrobial peptides.

Statistical analyses should be performed when comparing the difference between MICs of the different AMPs to show that the increase in sensitivity is statistically significant.

Statistical analyses should also be used to determine at what concentration of DP-C and colistin cell line viability is significantly decreased.

Minor points:
The authors state that peptides were synthesised to >95% purity. Can the authors state how the >95% purity of peptides was measured or if synthesised externally explicitly state that the synthesis was conducted by the named external company.

Lines 111-113 and 115-117: description of what the strains do and are for should not be in the methods section, they should be in the results section.

Table 1: It should be stated clearly within the table that the antibiotic concentrations shown are the MIC concentrations.
Validity of the findings: Raw data has been provided for all human cell line assays in the form of percentage viability, an appropriate number of replicates is provided with mean, SD and SEM are calculated. This information is however unclear in figure 1, number of replicates, and statement of whether SD or SEM is used to create the graph are needed in the legend.

The conclusions reflect the results presented with little speculation.
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: ADDITION OF L-CYSTEINE TO THE N- OR C-TERMINUS OF THE ALL-D-ENANTIOMER [D(KLAKLAK)2] INCREASES ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITIES AGAINST MULTIDRUG-RESISTANT PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA, ACINETOBACTER BAUMANNII AND ESCHERICHIA COLI
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Requested improvements were made to the text in the revised mansucript.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I cannot see the changes that the authors said they made to the legend of Figure 1 in their rebuttal letter - Raw data has been provided for all human cell line assays in the form of percentage viability, an appropriate number of replicates is provided with mean, SD and SEM are calculated. This information is however unclear in figure 1, number of replicates, and statement of whether SD or SEM is used to create the graph are needed in the legend.

This information is now found in the methods section, however can the authors include it in the figure legend for completeness and ease of interpreting the data (e.g. N=3 +/- SD). Also the meaning of the * in the figure should be clearly described in the figure legend (e.g. Students t-test *p<0.05).


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

Input:
Title: A BAYESIAN BRAIN MODEL OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR: AN APPLICATION TO THE WISCONSIN CARD SORTING TASK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please, provide a more detailed abstract that better clarify the methodology and the conclusions of the article, that in this version are only mentioned.
You do not mention anything about the Bayesian models used. Moreover, writing “theoretical implications … are finally discussed” means not reporting anything concerning the discussion of the paper.
The limits of the abstract are 500 words, and 3000 characters. Your abstract has 218 words and it is 1628 characters long, therefore, there is space for improvement.

The Winsconsin Card Sorting Test is a well-known neuropsychological test, currently used in neuropsychological settings as well as in experimental psychology. In particular, in neuropsychology, this test is used to test clinical aspects of perseverance (typical of frontal lesions), decision making, abstract reasoning and so on. It is inherently connected with executive functions.
For this reason, I think that the Authors should make an effort to be more understandable for the clinical and experimental neuropsychologist, with further examples concerning the Bayesian brain theories (e.g. they can report a classic example concerning sensory processing), and which (if any) benefits the neuropsychologist could take from using this perspective.

I would avoid terms like “dub”. If you “dub” something, it should have a real name. The coefficients dubbed as “flexibility” and “information loss” have a specific name?

Page 3, lines 10-20. In the general description of the Winsconsin card sorting test, you should report which is the version that you are using, if a validation and normative data eixst, how many cards there are, after how many consecutive responses the sorting rule changes, etc.

Please, when you refer to BayesFlow, add the version number or the date of the version. This is necessary because it is your open-source software which will be very likely updated in the next future.

In Figure 4 and 5, the labels are too small.

In the caption of Figure 3 please report what the violin plots and the boxplot are showing. Please, make more visible the boxplot because it is very hard to see (maybe you could increase the alpha level of the colour that is filling the violin plots, and make larger the boxplots?).

Page 12, lines 395-398. Why are you reporting only the graphics card of the computer? If you have used a CUDA-based computing approach you should explicitly state it.

Please, check the text for typos.
Experimental design: Page 4, lines 32-40. Please, make it clearer to what the hidden environmental states, the vectors of observation, and the feedback  are.
More specifically, what does it mean s_t = 1, or 2, or 3? This is very confusing because all the three features (colour, shape and number of objects) can change among 4 different states. So I would expect something like s_t =(c_t, sh_t, n_t), where  is the colour, is the shape,  is the number of symbols.
You are probably referring to the fact that the sorting rule can be shape, colour or number, but this is not specified anywhere. Please be clearer and use a mathematical symbology that is related to the task. If this is the case, you should call s “sorting rule”, and clearly state what  s_t = 1, or 2, or 3 mean.
Please, also specify that  is the action of choosing desk 1, 2, 3 or 4, and that  is the outcome failure (0) or success (1).

Page 3, line 30. Please, make it clearer that “the hidden environmental states might change at a non-constant rate” means that they change each action of the agent.

In (2) I suppose that the j in the summation should be within {1, 2, 3}. Please, if I am correct, add it.

Page 5, rows 76 – 77: what do you mean with resp. decrease and resp. negative? You never introduced the “resp.” abbreviation.

Page 8, simulation 1. Please, report central tendency indexes and dispersion parameters of your choice in a table to numerically describe the results obtained from the simulations shown in Figure 3.

I think that it might be interesting to see when E, PE, TCG and FMS in one condition are different from the other conditions. Would you mind to add statistical inference about that (better if done in the Bayesian framework)?

Also in simulation 2, a statistical comparison among the different results would be nice.

Page 14, Results. The results are very interesting, however, I am wondering why we do not have the results also from the Healthy population to make a comparison for the flexibility, information loss parameters, Bayesian surprise, Shannon surprise, and entropy.
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: A BAYESIAN BRAIN MODEL OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR: AN APPLICATION TO THE WISCONSIN CARD SORTING TASK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: [Minor comments]
Overall, both in the figures and text the authors could write what the parameters stand for instead of just the parameter itself. This is performed for example in the legend of figure 6 (..flexibility(lambda) and information loss(delta)) but not elsewhere. This is important particularly for readers with (currently) low working memory, so they don’t have to be searching for the meaning of the parameters all the time. Alternatively (or in addition), the authors could include a table with the parameter, its name, and what it measures (+ the space of values that it can have).
-	Figure 4: the green and blue lines are sometimes hard to distinguish, so consider having some of the lines dashed or dotted.
-	Figure 6: as stated above, it would be nice to also have examples of figures from control participants.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Alessandro and colleagues develop a Bayesian model that can be applied to the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task and has the potential to be applicable to other tasks as well. This is a nicely-written, thorough paper, that gives a potentially useful new tool to analyze a very commonly used task. The main advantage of their model is that it is normatively based and uses behavioral data from all trials, rather than relying only on summary statistics. I have only some comments/suggestions:
-	The authors fit their model to actual data of substance-dependent individuals (SDI). This allowed them to see that SDIs generally had low flexibility and high information loss (as per the parameters of their model). It would be useful to see how their model performs in healthy controls, and what the model parameters are in this group.
-	To the point above, it would be interesting to see if the model could have a direct clinical utility in terms of distinguishing between SDIs and healthy controls. It is, however, a useful model to have even if it doesn’t distinguish between them.
-	How does the model compare to existing models in the literature (e.g. a Reinforcement learning model)? However, it is perfectly ok for the authors to decide that model comparison is not an objective of this paper, in which case this could be stated directly (the discussion section suggests it but it would be good to have it explicitly written earlier in the paper too).

Overall this is a good paper, with a model that has the potential to be used broadly.


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

Input:
Title: A BAYESIAN BRAIN MODEL OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR: AN APPLICATION TO THE WISCONSIN CARD SORTING TASK
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This part of the article is improved.
Experimental design: This part of the article is improved.
Validity of the findings: This part of the article is improved.
Additional comments: Everything is fine by my side, please only check your references.
Probably you used an old bibtex file because there are a lot of missing references (e.g. page 2, lines 79-82).


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

Input:
Title: A BAYESIAN BRAIN MODEL OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR: AN APPLICATION TO THE WISCONSIN CARD SORTING TASK
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: •	There are a few question marks instead of possible citations (e.g. neurocognitive mechanisms, such as motor control (?), oculomotor dynamics70 (?), object recognition (?), attention (?) ). This is probably a reference manager/compilation issue, but should be corrected.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The manuscript has substantially improved. I only have a few minor suggestions/edits:
•	In the example the authors give of a perceptual task, the authors could have chosen a more intuitive/more tangible example (e.g. judging if an item in the sky is a plane or a bird; the weight of a mug of coffee and the force needed to grab it without spilling; etc.). This is, of course, a personal preference, and the authors are free to just keep the example as is.
•	There are a few question marks instead of possible citations (e.g. neurocognitive mechanisms, such as motor control (?), oculomotor dynamics70 (?), object recognition (?), attention (?) ). This is probably a reference manager/compilation issue but should be corrected.
•	Just before Figure 1 – replace “noticed” by “notice” (“Noticed that both features and sorting rules refer to the same” – line 148 of the clean 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 FOOD TYPE AND ABUNDANCE ON BEGGING AND SHARING IN ASIAN SMALL-CLAWED OTTERS (AONYX CINEREUS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Great. No comment.
Experimental design: No comment (but see below).
Validity of the findings: Good, no comment.
Additional comments: This is an interesting study on food sharing and begging in captive otters. The paper is well-written and well-organized. I have no major concerns with the methods or results, but I have some suggestions for improving the reporting of results. I have two major comments and minor comments by line below. Also, you’ll want to move you data and R code from dropbox to a repository like Figshare or Data Dryad or include it as a supplement.

Major comments

The definitions of food sharing and begging need to be clarified (in abstract, introduction and methods). How does one distinguish between begging and dominance behavior? As it is written, if one otter aggressively attacks another otter and takes its food that would count as “food sharing: collect near” because “beggar retrieves food from within arm’s reach of owner”. I would call this a ‘food transfer’ but definitely not sharing. Also active begging is defined as one otter “physically contacts owner or food”. So again, an attack would be considered begging. I don’t think these extremely broad descriptions (any physical contact) are the definitions the observers actually used (implicitly or explicitly) to define begging. For example, if one otters tail touches another is that begging? Or if one otter pushes another aside is that begging? Use definitions that would allow the study to be replicated properly. Or alternatively explain what these interactions typically look like so the reader can understand that they are actually ‘begging’ behaviors. A video would be helpful.

On lines 315 and 317 The authors say that the intensively begging individuals which were removed as outliers were the youngest individuals. If this is true, then these data are not outliers, and they should not be excluded from any analyses (and it also suggests a possible non-linear effect of age on begging frequency which makes sense). It would be good to plot begging frequency with age to visualize that.

Minor comments by line

Abstract
32 might be good to define begging somewhere
35 “(inclusive)” does not need to be in parentheses
42 “begging rates were indeed correlated with increased food transfers” Over time or across dyads
51 delete “both models of”
60 no parentheses needed
76 It seems strange to lump all insects together as one example, and use spotted hyenas as another. Rather than discussing food sharing in all animals, you could just focus more on a certain group, like on food-sharing in group-living mammals, and/or consider differences between cooperative breeders and non-cooperative breeders.
85 When you say “in species such as…” what do chimps, capuchins, and jackdaws have in common?
93 “(inclusive) fitness benefois” should say “indirect fitness benefits”. Also instances do not require an adaptive explanation, only heritable traits do.
94 “who are then expected to” should say “that are more likely to”
98 two commas missing
123 if ‘begging’ is in quotes, you should explain what this behavior looks like.

Methods
174 Can you explain why prey complexity was not randomised? Or clarify if it was or was not.
184 Do you mean a ‘possible beggar’? I don’t think begging should be defined purely based on proximity, and this also contradicts definitions below.
194 How do you discriminate active begging from fighting over food
205 total number of begging occurrences for the otter that is begging or being begged?
234 12 outliers out of how many total data? Same with the others…

Results
242 It would be good to report an effect size (standardized or unstandardized). What proportion of begging observations led to a food transfer (e.g. 12 out of 100)?
255 This section would also benefit from effect size estimates as in “juveniles begged XXX more than adults” or “shared XXX less than adults”.
263 change “significant trend” to “trend”. Also, you don’t need to say “however” because there is no real difference between p =0.04 and p=0.05.
for any nonsignificant results, I would suggest plotting the coefficient with 95% CI as a way to assess statistical power. I gave an example below.

Figure 1 needs to show the number of overlapping data points using transparency, data point size, or geom_jitter()

Figure 2 and 3 log-transformation, log(X+1), would show the data better

Discussion
315 - 317 see main comments

# R code for getting 95% confidence interval of a linear mixed model coefficient using bootstrapping

library(lme4)

# create fake data
data <-
  data.frame(
  response= round(runif(n=1000, min=0, max=10)),
  predictor=sample(c(T,F), size=200, replace=T),
  id= sample(c("a","b","c", 'd'), size=200, replace=T))

# fit model
fit <- summary(lmer(response ~ predictor + (1|id), data= data))

# get fixed effect coefficient
obs <- fit$coefficients[2,1]

# choose number of samples
perms <- 1000

# get expected coefficients from bootstrapping (might take awhile)
exp <- rep(NA, perms)
for (i in 1:perms){

  # resample data with replacement
  data2 <- data[sample(nrow(data), nrow(data), replace=T), ]

  # fit model
  fit2 <- summary(lmer(response ~ predictor + (1|id), data= data2))

  # get fixed effect coefficient
  exp[i] <- fit2$coefficients[2,1]
}

# plot bootstrapped values
hist(exp)

# plot confidence interval of coefficient
library(ggplot2)
ci95 <- quantile(exp, probs= c(0.025, 0.975))
d <- data.frame(low= ci95[1], mean= obs, high=ci95[2])
ggplot(data= d, aes(x="", y=mean))+
  geom_point(size=3)+
  geom_errorbar(aes(ymin=low, ymax=high, width=.1), size=1)+
  geom_hline(yintercept = 0)+
  ylab("coefficient")+
  xlab("")+
  ggtitle(“bootstrapped 95% confidence interval”)


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 FOOD TYPE AND ABUNDANCE ON BEGGING AND SHARING IN ASIAN SMALL-CLAWED OTTERS (AONYX CINEREUS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting article reporting food-sharing experiments among captive Asian small-clawed otters. The experiments are framed in terms of literature addressing the function and variation of begging as well as sharing behaviors. I found the literature to be quite comprehensively reviewed, though I have some suggestions for increasing clarity (see below). The figures and tables are appropriate and the statistical inferences are fine. I congratulate the authors on this nice study.

My major suggestion is that the introduction could be clearer. There are a lot of issues brought up, and I think a better structure would help readers not to lose track. I think in some cases the logic of a certain argument (e.g. why some food types are shared more than others) could also be spelled out more. Essentially, the article has to introduce functional explanations of begging behavior, sharing behavior, and factors influencing variation in these behaviors (such as food type and abundance). In addition, the authors also appear to distinguish between begging/sharing among relatives and among non-relatives. This is a lot to keep track of, and not all nuances are fleshed out. For example, what is arguably more important than the distinction between relatives and non-relatives is whether begging/sharing occurs between adults and juveniles, who are not yet competent foragers, or among adults, who are competent foragers. For a juvenile, begging may be the only way to obtain food even when it's abundant, if it cannot yet independently process the food, hence some studies distinguish between "difficult" and "easy" foods (Silk 1978, Nishida & Turner 1996, Jaeggi et al 2008). Here, the authors inferred extraction complexity from exploitation time, but it is unclear how this extraction complexity varied by age - were all otters able to process all food types with similar efficiency or did juveniles struggle with e.g. crabs and were better off begging from more competent adults? - and whether begging and sharing rates were explained by foraging competence. Among adults, who are all competent foragers, what matters is monopolizability - again, the question is can an individual obtain food independently (by simply walking over to a different part of the enclosure) or is all the food controlled by a single individual and everyone else's only chance of obtaining anything is to beg? So here the most important property of a food type is how large/clumped it is - e.g. in chimpanzees meat is shared much more than fruit because it comes in a single, large package whereas fruit is all around. It seems like in the present study the monopolization potential was relatively low for all food types (they all came in smallish pieces), but varied by abundance (a small pile is more easily monopolized than a large pile). On the other hand, some explanations like reciprocity or social bonding (which may arguably be the same thing) don't really need to be introduced since the authors don't go on to test whether sharing is reciprocated or relates to the relationship between owner and beggar in any other way. In fact, given that begging is the most important predictor of sharing and that you're not taking into account any relationships, it seems somewhat redundant to test predictors of begging (table 2) and sharing (table 3) - juveniles beg more (table 2), and begging predicts sharing (table 1) hence juveniles are shared with more (table 3); this is not that surprising (though still interesting and important to report!). What is surprising is the relative lack of a food type or abundance effect, which is why it's important to clearly contextualize this in terms of the relevant factors of processing difficulty and monopolizability - some of this is more explicitly mentioned in the Discussion, and some better streamlining between Introduction and Discussion would therefore be helpful.

In sum, I would urge the authors to rephrase some of the introduction, especially when talking about variation in begging/sharing due to food properties in terms of extraction difficulty (for juveniles) and monopolizability (for adults). The order of the introduction also appears slightly jumbled, with e.g. the first paragraph introducing begging, the second variation in begging and sharing, and then the third seems to go back in defining sharing. The "between relatives" on line 111 also seems out of place as previous paragraphs already talked about sharing among non-relatives. In sum, a lot of the relevant literature and factors are discussed, but appear slightly jumbled and not always clearly fleshed out. I think some targeted revisions would make the paper much clearer.
Experimental design: The authors provided the otters with several different food types in different abundances and recorded any begging and sharing behaviors. The respective behaviors are well defined and quantified. The statistical methods are well explained and appropriate.

I have a few minor questions regarding begging and sharing behavior. Passive begging: were food possessors ever disturbed by this and did it ever lead to food sharing without subsequent active begging? In my study species, I have never seen an owner care about passive begging. Similarly, did owners ever attempt to resist "collect near" or appear upset by it in any way? Again, I have never seen owners bothered by this, and it led me to conclude that they must not regard the food lying near them as being in their possession and therefore lay no claim to it. For this reason, "collect near" does not seem to fit the definition of sharing (the food is arguably not being transferred because it is not in possession of anyone) and several studies exclude it. In your case, if you have reason to believe that collect near does constitute a transfer, i.e. that owners claim possession over food lying near them and at least sometimes resist attempts to take it, then there is no need to change, but otherwise it might be useful to re-run your analyses excluding collect near.

I would also urge the authors to follow the recent open science movement and make their data and code publicly available for easier replicability.
Validity of the findings: No further comments
Additional comments: Minor comments by line numbers:

50-52: duplicated sentence

87: Feistner, not Fiestner

100-110: should also credit Blurton Jones 1984, who coined the term tolerated theft. He extended the logic of the Hawk-Dove game to situations where food is clumped and comes in large packages. In this case, beggars have no other choice but to try to obtain food from owners, and should be highly motivated to do so (i.e. play Hawk, if needed), because they won't eat otherwise. Owners on the other hand will be less motivated to defend their food because there is so much of it that they will invariably eat something. This asymmetry in motivation leads owners to give up some food (play Dove) rather than defend it all (play Hawk). So yes, harassment is a specific behavioral mechanism by which beggars impose costs on owners, but the general logic comes from the asymmetrical Hawk-Dove game.

199: here it is claimed that there was clear possession during "collect near" - how exactly did this manifest itself?

257, 262: I don't think the "however" is warranted here since the no-outliers analysis shows essentially the same result as the full model? further, in 263 i would remove the word "significant" from "significant trend" (an oxymoron)

331: "same mass-specific energy demands as adults" - really? I always thought that metabolic rate scales *allo*metrically with size (not isometrically), i.e. adults would have lower metabolic rate per unit weight.


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 FOOD TYPE AND ABUNDANCE ON BEGGING AND SHARING IN ASIAN SMALL-CLAWED OTTERS (AONYX CINEREUS)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The writing, in general, is clear and understandable. The introduction is thorough in its’ background and references. The figures are relevant and explanatory. The raw data is provided. The following should be corrected:

Lines 51-53: Please cut “Both models Theoretical models of begging have focussed on the nutritional demands of offspring and food solicitation interactions with parents (Grafen 1990; Zahavi 1975).” It is a repeated section.

Line 53: “Both models…” Would be helpful to specify what the two models are.

Line 55: Should be “Mock and Parker 1997)”

Lines 53-58: “Both models…” This sentence is confusing and should be rewritten for clarity.

Line 63: Cut “in nature”

Lines 74-80: Should be “Food sharing is commonly observed in nonhuman animals, including birds (termed “allofeeding”, Evans and Marler 1994; Heinrich 1988; Stacey and Koenig 1990; Thiollay 1991), insects (Bolten et al. 1983; Boggs 1995; Vahed 1998), fish (Griffiths and Armstrong 2002),and mammals, including vampire bats (Carter and Wilkinson 2013; Denault and McFarlane 1995; Wilkinson 1984), cetaceans (Johnson 1982; Hoelzel 1991) mice (Porter, Moore and White 1981), spotted hyenas (Holekamp and Smale 1990), lions (Cooper 1991) and wolves (Dale et al. 2017).”

Line 137: It would be helpful to have a description of what makes a food item more or less difficult to exploit.

Line 210: Should be: “per otter and trial were fitted and were modelled…”

Figure 1: Is it possible to include r for the regression line on the chart?
Experimental design: It is an interesting research question in line with the depth of research conducted on begging and sharing. For the most part, the methods are clear and replicable. The statistical analyses are thorough and the r code is provided. The animals were treated well within ethical standards and the research was approved by the university ethics committee and both zoos. Please address the following:

Lines 174-175: Why weren’t the levels of exploitability randomized? By the third repetition, could it have been possible for the otters to predict and might this have influenced their behavior?

Line 185: “within arm’s reach” The otter's arm's reach? 1m is a very long arm for an ASCO. Or is this a human's arm's reach? Please clarify.

Results: Who were the juveniles and adults begging and sharing from? Were juveniles begging from adults and adults sharing with juveniles or the opposite? Was it more within categories? Juveniles sharing and begging with juveniles and the same with adults? Is it possible to include this in the analysis?
Validity of the findings: The data and r code are included and the statistical analysis is sound. The conclusions are clear and come out of the research question and previous research. One possible aspect to discuss: It is surprising that there was no difference between the behavior in the animals from the two different zoos based on the differences in group sizes, differences in enclosures, and feeding schedules and provided foods. What might have accounted for that?
Additional comments: Overall, this is a fine study on an interesting question. There is thorough background research and, in general, it is well written. The statistical analysis is valid and the results and conclusions are interesting. Please address the provided 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: EFFECTS OF PLATELET-RICH PLASMA ON MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLS ISOLATED FROM RAT UTERUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the research has an important clinical message and should be of great interest to the readers.
The study outcomes could be outlined as follows:
1)The isolated MSC s from rat uterine met the minimum criteria for MSCs, which suggests that using endometrium as an alternative site for MSC is reasonable.
2)The PRP has a desirable effect on the MSCs behaviors which can be seen in the proliferation rate as measured by the percentage of Ki-67.
3)PRP or OP has an insignificant effect on the ER-alpha or BCL-2.
4)OP treated MSCs have  higher levels  of MMP-9 expression & p53.
5)Both PRP and OP induce autophagy activity of MSCs.

The study objectives were too broad and should be narrowed down to a specific primary objective. Sufficient background information is not provided to explain what has already been done and more effort should be made to justify the purpose of this study and generate interest in the reader.. The primary hypothesis should be discussed in more detail to provide clarity.

Abstract:
•	Line 26-27: preposition
•	Line 37-38: Punctuation
•	Line 41: did you have more than one OP group?

Suggestions for the manuscript:
1)	In lines 53-55, the activation approaches of PRP are described.  This section would benefit by including more details about the importance of platelet activation to ensure continuity and clarity.

2)	In line 63, the advantages of using PRP in the clinical practice including safety and invasiveness should be expanded. onThe importance of PRP in treating thin endometrium was not clearly described. More details about its clinical use in reproductive medicine should be included and this information should be better connected to the research questions. More details are needed such as how PRP promotes tissue regeneration.

3)	In lines 76-77, it would be better to justify the reason for using a rat model instead of a human model (accessibility is a good argument). Also, MSC is usually isolated from bone marrow & adipose tissue; justify the reason for using uterine derived MSCs.
Experimental design: The method section is well defined and detailed with enough information to be reproducible. The statistical tests used are suitable for the generated data. However, looking at the raw data file, there is considerable variation of western blot data in the technical triplicate. This should be explained. Was the experiment repeated or optimized?

Method section:
1.	The ethical approval sentence is repeated (lines 86-87 & 93-94).
2.	In line 102, how much blood was collected?
3.	Western blot assay section: I suggest reporting the final antibody concentration or dilution especially if optimization was required during the study.
Validity of the findings: The results are reasonable giving the experiments.

Suggestions:

Results section

1.In line 230, the expression of p53 in OP treated cells is mentioned; what about the p53 protein level in RPP treated cells? This finding should be reported to reflect the figures.
2.In line 260: indicate the name of cultures (SF, SM).

Discussion section
Overall, the discussion section reads well but it could be developed further. Here are a few suggestions:
In line 288, discuss the autophagy and self-renewal in more detail. The argument is excellent but it needs to link the finding with what has been reported in the literature. Also, it should be supported by citations.

In line 311, discuss the meaning of the result. It has been shown that a high MMP-9 expression is implicated in vasodilation, placentation and uterine expansion during normal pregnancy and changes in the activity or expression may indicate pregnancy complications. How can PRP enhance the implantation and endometrial growth in women with a thin endometrium?

Conclusion

Try to reformulate this section by explaining what this study adds to the existing literature.
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: EFFECTS OF PLATELET-RICH PLASMA ON MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLS ISOLATED FROM RAT UTERUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The scientific reporting of this work is sound. However, a few words need to be replaced (e.g. etc.) and are highlighted in the attached pdf file. In addition, the author(s) occasionally used a single study (that is not with high level of evidence) to make a general assumption in areas where there are compelling evidence.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: The findings of the work support the current applications of PRP in clinical practice. However, the used statistical approach may need more sample size to empower the outcomes. Also, the method of determining the data distribution (normal or non-normal) should be disclosed.
Additional comments: This is a great piece of work and could be published once the necessary corrections are considered or addressed.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF PLATELET-RICH PLASMA ON MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLS ISOLATED FROM RAT UTERUS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written.
The only weakness is the length of the introduction.Try to shorten it by omitting some details or reformat the paragraph (50-56 , 62-71, 106-111).
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: The results are reasonable giving the experiments.
Additional comments: The manuscript provied important data in the filed of regenerative medicine with an important addition to the literature.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTS OF PLATELET-RICH PLASMA ON MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLS ISOLATED FROM RAT UTERUS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The discussion and conclusion part are well written. The introduction is very extensive and better than the previous submission. However, the introduction requires a few adjustments (re-structure) to flow better. I put a few suggestions for you to do that. Also, It is utterly important to include the motivation and purpose of this study in the introduction.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Thanks for re-submitting the manuscript and doing the suggested modifications.
Please, work on re-organizing the introduction and include the aim and motivation of your research.


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 PLATELET-RICH PLASMA ON MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLS ISOLATED FROM RAT UTERUS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: There are grammatical errors and instances of bad sentence construction throughout the manuscript which need to be reviewed and corrected. This should be improved to ensure that the manuscipt is easily readable and clearly understood by the audience.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: The findings of this study corresponds with previous research findings. Can you expand as to the reasons why the percentage of positive cells for CD105 was lower than expected (line 314-315)
Additional comments: Overall, I think this is a good 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: EFFECTS OF PLATELET-RICH PLASMA ON MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLS ISOLATED FROM RAT UTERUS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the manuscript is now well written. The use of English language is better and the introduction section follow clearly.
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: EFFECTS OF PLATELET-RICH PLASMA ON MESENCHYMAL STEM CELLS ISOLATED FROM RAT UTERUS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: This article is well written and the revisions are satisfactory


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: REPURPOSING FDA-APPROVED PHYTOMEDICINES, NATURAL PRODUCTS, ANTIVIRALS AND CELL PROTECTIVES AGAINST SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) RNA-DEPENDENT RNA POLYMERASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Abstract & Introduction:

Line 26 & 57 - coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) should instead be coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Experimental design: -	Protein sequencing data is repetition as its already documented at >96% similarity in literature
-	In Figure 4 and 8, There are few interactions that are not commented on
-	Please provide detail of the docked complex for Figure 4 (i.e, which atom or functional group is interacting with the residue)
-	Justify while molecular weight of compound > 600 g/mol can be considered as a drug agent for the proposed infection
-	In line 368 and the capture under Figure 4 change hrdrophobic residues to hydrophobic residues and stocking to stacking interaction
Validity of the findings: The article is interesting in light of CADD assistance in predicting probable solutions to the current pandemic which is a hot topic right now. Although not all of the top hits were appropriate due to pharmacokinetic aspects the information does however provide possible solutions in the form of docetaxel and neohesperidin.
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: REPURPOSING FDA-APPROVED PHYTOMEDICINES, NATURAL PRODUCTS, ANTIVIRALS AND CELL PROTECTIVES AGAINST SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) RNA-DEPENDENT RNA POLYMERASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: There are some points that the authors should make clearer.

The RdRP crystal has two Mg2+ ions in the vicinity of the inhibitor that are important for the catalytic activity. Were these ions considered during docking and dynamics calculations or not? If not, why?

The alignment of the sequences is not applied in the work; apart from saying that the RdRp sequence of Sars-CoV-2 is extremely similar to that of Sars-CoV and slightly different from Mers, it brings no added value. Although very limited, the differences between the two RdRp sequences Sars-Cov and Sars-CoV-2 are found above all near the active site? If so, these small differences could be significant.

Is the Remdesivir structure that has been considered the crystallographic one or does it represent a docking pose? In the first case, the authors should explain how they know if the docking procedure they have chosen is reliable or not; in the second case, what is the Remdesivir docking score with SP and XP?

Figure 3 of docking results is of little use. Too many superimposed molecules do not allow us to understand if the respective poses are right or not and it is not possible to understand the relative position of the molecules with respect to Remdesivir, which was then taken as a reference. Also, the SP docking results are completely different from the XP ones. The molecules in the two rankings are different as well as the scores. We agree that the two scoring functions are different, but in this case it seems that two completely different scenarios are considered ...).

How many replicas of the various dynamics have been performed? (Maybe one is insufficient ...).

Table 5 shows the decomposition of the estimated MMGBSA binding energy of one of the two molecules selected for extended dynamics. It would be interesting if the authors also showed the other molecule, in order to have a complete picture of the final result of the 100ns dynamics and of the behavior of the two molecules in complex with RdRp.

Figure 8 shows the interactions of the two molecules within the active site. Are these interactions those present at the last frame of the dynamics or do they represent some other frame? Are the interactions held constant throughout the simulation or are they formed during molecular dynamics? It would be interesting, especially for docetaxel, to see how this compound positions itself inside the binding pocket.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: This reviewer would like to point out also some minor changes:

Figure 4: check if the amino acid residues involved in hydrogen bond interactions and highlighted in this Figure are indeed the same reported in the text (line 164);

correct hrdrophobic and stocking in the legend of Figure 4;

line 216 and throughout the text I would suggest reporting the acronym vdw as VDW, or even better in full as van der Walls interaction(s).


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: MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY AND SPECIES DELIMITATION OF THE FRESHWATER PRAWN MACROBRACHIUM PILIMANUS SPECIES GROUP, WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF THREE NEW SPECIES FROM THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - The language was mostly clear, using professional standard English throughout. Only some parts required clarification for a better understanding of the scientific results, and I could spot and corrected a few typos, in particular in the Discussion part (see annotated pdf).

- The background and context were clearly detailed and the relevant existing litterature was correctly and sufficiently cited.

- The article is overall well structured. The tables were clear and the resolution of the figures was sufficient. All the relevant raw data were provided.

- This submission includes all the results relevant to the hypothesis.
Experimental design: - The results presented are original and agree with the Aims and Scope of the journal.

- The research question is well defined and the gap the results are meant to fill is clearly identified.

- The methods used to answer the question are the standard approach and were followed rigorously by the authors.

- Almost all the details needed to replicate the results were provided in this manuscript, a few parameters were missing in order to be able to reproduce the phylogenetic analyses (see annotated pdf).
Validity of the findings: No comment on the results, the evidence to support them is sufficient and state-of-the-art, and further research on the subject is encouraged by the authors.
Additional comments: This article presents a molecular phylogeny of the Macrobrachium pilimanus species group from Thailand with the descriptions of three new species. It is well structured and the presented results are sound and original. I could only find a few minor details that needed to be corrected, which is why I recommend this article to be accepted after minor revisions (see annotated pdf attached).


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: MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY AND SPECIES DELIMITATION OF THE FRESHWATER PRAWN MACROBRACHIUM PILIMANUS SPECIES GROUP, WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF THREE NEW SPECIES FROM THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: English needs to be improved. Unnecessarily verbose in places and wording often clumsy.

Choice of genetic markers need to be justified with reference to appropriate literature.

A brief discussion of species concepts is required as it is not clear how criteria were applied.

What is the "partitioned DNA sequence analysis" approach to species delimitation? No explanation or reference given.

Distributional information needs to be given, including sampling points and the know distribution of all species both within Thailand and the wider region. Map needs to include drainage basins.

Morphological data not presented in a way that demonstrated clear morphological differences among species. Cells in Table 4 could be highlighted for traits that are diagnostic for a particular species. Or a separate table presented giving the diagnostics traits. Even better would be a numerical taxonomic analysis in the form of a scatter diagram using multidimensional scaling or using a clustering algorithm or similar.

Too often we are asked to take on faith that groupings made by a taxonomists using morphology are valid without clearly presented evidence.
Experimental design: The stated aim is to "integrate traditional taxonomic examination and
molecular phylogeny using three molecular markers to delimit species boundaries"

However, the semi-subjective morphological-based assessments seem to drive the taxonomic conclusions and the molecular data is essentially provided as accessory information and is not critically evaluated.  A better approach would be to demonstrate that all the designated taxa are morphological distinct and then look for support from the molecular data. Or if the morphological data is too variable, the paper should be driven by the molecular data.

A major gap in the data analysis is the failure to include relevant data from NCBI and BOLD for the same or related species of Macrobrachium. Figure S2 makes some effort, however this sample set is incomplete (not all samples from Figures1/2 are included). Further, Fig S2 indicates there are major issues with either species boundaries or identification in this group of species outside of Thailand, which requires further discussion.

18S must be dropped from the analysis - it is too conserved and often has erratic evolutionary rates between lineages. The species delimitation results for 18S in Figure 2, are all over the place.

The authors do not attempt to reconcile the differences between the range of species delimitation methods and gene regions. An MDS plot of genetic differences/similarity is often a useful way to determine/show where there are clusters of genetically similar samples that are divergent from other clusters.
Validity of the findings: There is frequently a problem with a country focused  study of this kind when some of the species may occur widely outside the country. Thus it is essential  that distributional information is included as the reader can not tell to what extent species are sampled from their full distributional range. Knowing a species is genetically distinct in sympatry is critical information, as well as what the distributional relationship is between species.

There is no attempt to reconcile the different outcomes of the species delimitation methods and gene regions. Clade B comes out as anywhere from a single species to up to 5 species (Figure 2), so there needs to be a rational basis for deciding how to delimit species.  I don't to see any real attempt in "integration of traditional taxonomic examination and molecular phylogeny using three molecular markers to delimit species boundaries".

It is also necessary to validate the results using sequences on NCBI and BOLD. Figure S2 is step in the right direction, but this needs to be done for all related COI and 16S sequences. A better tabulation of within and between species genetic distance matrices is needed, and comparison with other Macrobrachium studies with respect divergence levels. While I don't advocate a purely bar-coding (distance) approach to species delimitation, there is plenty of discussion of the "bar-coding gap", which would be relevant here.
Additional comments: There are some good aspects to this paper including the attempted integration of tradition taxonomy and molecular genetic data (coupled with the use of species delimitation tools), however there are some serious limitations to how this has been done (or not done).

With significant revision this work maybe publishable. The major limitation will be trying to draw taxonomic conclusions for species that may have extensive distributions outside of Thailand. If the 3 putative new species can be justified and are known to be endemic to Thailand that would make it simpler. This why it is essential that the authors place their work in a clear geographic 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: MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY AND SPECIES DELIMITATION OF THE FRESHWATER PRAWN MACROBRACHIUM PILIMANUS SPECIES GROUP, WITH DESCRIPTIONS OF THREE NEW SPECIES FROM THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is a nice blend of traditional morphology taxonomy and molecular taxonomy.
Experimental design: This paper is clearly written, largely well referenced, professionally presented.
Validity of the findings: I am no expert on morphological taxonomy, but it appears to have been well done to me.

The DNA barcoding (molecular taxonomy) seems reasonably well done, but there should be some discussion of the differing results from the different species delineation methods.

The phylogenetic element of the paper is the main bit that could use some further work.

The authors state that their results (line 256-258) “indicated the monophyletic relationship of all Thai species in the “pilimanus” species group (Clade A in 258 Figure 1) after being rooted by four congener species from other species groups”. Of course they are monophyletic if only 4 other taxa are included in the analysis from different lineages. Almost anything can be made monophyletic this way. To test monophyly, multiple exemplars of putative ingroup and putative outgroups must be included to make for a proper test.

There are plenty of available sequences on GenBank that could be used as a starting point. These include species supposedly within the pilimanus group from various countries (all of having at least COI or 16S sequences, and many with 18S too). These include: Macrobrachium pilimanus, Macrobrachium aff. pilimanus, Macrobrachium lepidactylus, Macrobrachium hirsutimanus, Macrobrachium dienbienphuense, Macrobrachium eriocheirum, Macrobrachium forcipatum, Macrobrachium platycheles, Macrobrachium amplimanus , Macrobrachium urayang. These need to be integrated, analysed and assessed. This can be done for COI, 16S & 18S separately, and then for all 3 together (Bayesian analysis can work well including some taxa with missing data).

Obviously, non-pilimanus group taxa need to be included too to test the monophyly of pilimanus, ideally taxa thought to be closely related, and more distant ones too. I note there is very little discussion of the results of previous papers in the setting of hypotheses/expectations for the current paper. For example there is Wowor et al 2009 MPE and Bracken et al 2010 Zool Scripta (I have not done an exhaustive literature search, there may well be many other relevant papers). I note the results of the current paper are different from Wowor et al 2009 in relation to the position of M. malayanum and M. niphane relative to pilimanus. This is the sort of detail that should be raised in the Introduction and then compared and discussed later.

So this sort of data and discussion needs to be included if the authors wish to speculate on larger scale phylogenetic relationships. The other option is to remove any real discussion of phylogeny, and just stick to morphological and molecular taxonomy. This would mean the authors would discuss the species that they have analysed but not deal much with higher level matters.
Additional comments: - A map is required as most readers won't know where these places are or how they relate to each other.

- The order of Table 1 is confusing. I would put it in alphabetical order by species, and within each species I’d organise it geographically (maybe by Thai regions of river basins). This would make it user friendly. It also needs to be clear that every site (except one) is in Thailand.

- The trees would be easier to interpret if there was some geographical labelling. Do the species group geographically? Within a species, is there obvious phylogeographic structure? This isn’t possible to assess without geographic labels of some sort.


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: EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC STABILIZATION EXERCISE COMPARED WITH TRADITIONAL TRUNK EXERCISE IN WOMEN WITH NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN: A PILOT RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see "General Comments".
Experimental design: Please see "General Comments".
Validity of the findings: Please see "General Comments".
Additional comments: Thank you for the opportunity you gave me to review the manuscript entitled “Effectiveness of specific stabilization exercise compared with traditional trunk exercise in women with non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial”. However, in my opinion, the manuscript needs to be improved to be published in PeerJ.

Specific comments
1-	Materials & Methods: The authors may need explain the DETAILS of the randomization method (e.g., allocation concealment mechanism, implementation, and blinding).
2-	The authors used p-values to assess balance in baseline characteristics between two groups. There are many published references that avoid researchers to use of statistical testing for baseline comparison (de Boer et al., 2015). P-values are affected by sample size. If the sample size is large enough, even very small differences may be statistically significant. On the other hand, even large differences may lead to non-significant results if the sample is too small (less than 20) (du Prel et al., 2009). For quantitative variables, other approaches such as difference of <0.25 standard deviation (SD) in baseline characteristics can be used.
3-	The authors may need to calculate effect size measures (e.g., the standardized mean difference [SMD]) with associate confidence intervals in order to compare between two groups. The major benefit of determining effect size is that unlike test statistics, the effect size is not greatly influenced by sample size, thus reducing problems of power associated with large and small samples.
4-	For variables that were not normally distributed, the authors can use transformation to calculate SMD.
5-	The authors may need to present the significance level sign (*) in figures 2 and 3 for within-group comparison.
6-	Is was not clear whether confounding variables (e.g., Smoke and depression) were controlled in patients with NLBP.
7-	It is highly recommended that the authors compare the effect of intervention on the outcome measures with their MCID values to assess whether the effect is substantially beneficial.
8-	In addition to statistical tests, the authors may need to assess the normal distribution with histograms.
9-	The authors mentioned that “One of our study’s limitations is its sample size…” Why did the authors state this sentence whereas they calculated the sample size?
10-	The authors may need to report of the mode of TENS (conventional, low rate, etc.) with its details (i.e., frequency, electrode placement, pulse width, time, etc).
11-	How did the physiotherapist progress the exercise program?
12-	The figures of exercises should be presented.
13-	Did the participants use analgesics during the treatment period? If yes, how did the authors manage this issue?


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: EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC STABILIZATION EXERCISE COMPARED WITH TRADITIONAL TRUNK EXERCISE IN WOMEN WITH NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN: A PILOT RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The english writing is acceptable  The literature review content is very cursory around the issue of comparing different exercise types, as the evidence is overwhelming that no one type of exercise is superior to another (incl stabilization exercise).  There is next to no content to justify the inflammatory measures used and they should be removed moving forward.  This article should be scoped as a feasibility study and described as such.
Experimental design: The risk of bias is unacceptable for this study with the single physiotherapist conducting both interventions, thus we have no faith either intervention is valid.

The sample size estimation to justify such a small sample is extremely flawed, and scoping the study as a feasibility study is best.  However the single physiotherapist as the treating professional is unacceptable to have any confidence in the validity of the intervention.
Validity of the findings: This section is a fail as per the above critical error in study design.
Additional comments: This could be reframed as a clinical feasibility study, but the issue of a single clinician providing the two fundamentally different types of exercise is a major bias that cannot be corrected or avoided here.  There can be no confidence in the validity of the interventions or the 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: EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC STABILIZATION EXERCISE COMPARED WITH TRADITIONAL TRUNK EXERCISE IN WOMEN WITH NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN: A PILOT RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article in general uses clear, concise, unambiguous and technically correct text.
The introduction and background sufficiently describes the impact of LBP. Relevant prior literature is appropriately referenced.
The article structure, figures and tables are all of professional level, however some specific comments for the Results, Discussion and figures sections are provided below. Raw data were not shared.
The structure of the article conforms to an acceptable format of ‘standard sections’.
The article is generally self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses. However, some issues require a clearer explanation and should be added.
Experimental design: Original primary research with research question well defined, relevant & meaningful, stating how research fills an identified knowledge gap. It is interesting that the authors wished to explore inflammatory markers in LBP.

A well-conducted investigation performed to a sufficient technical & ethical standard.

Methods not described with sufficient detail & information to replicate in some respect, and this is pointed out to the authors.
Validity of the findings: The validity of the findings is not sound, as results are representative of a small group of LBP participants and only female. Therefore this study can be characterized as a pilot study.

Conclusions are adequately stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: 1.	In my opinion, TNF-a and IL-6 values in the Abstract should be made for both groups. Please amend.

2.	Follow up of 1 month post-exercise is a rather limited timeframe. However, within that limited time, pain and disability levels in both groups have increased. Possible implications of a non-long-lasting effect of both exercise programs on pain & disability levels should be commented on by the authors.

3.	The authors seem to over-discuss the significance of their secondary measures (not the Disability one) over their primary one.However, for such a small study, and probably underpowered for those particular measures, such discussion is somewhat redundant. For instance, TNF-a unequal baselines, is probably due to small sample size. On the other hand, IL-6 baseline levels were equal between-groups. Which renders this latter measure the one that confers an equal starting point. For TNF-a levels, an ANCOVA analysis might have been better suited than an ANOVA.

4.	Why did TNF-a values increase in the TTE group to the authors opinion? If this is due to exercise intensity of the TTE, some more information on the particular exercises used should be given. However, it seems that there was no impact of TNF-a levels in either Pain or Disability levels.

5.	Lines 81: Correct typo.

6.	Line 121 & 133 & 138: Why are the 2 programs referred to as ‘back schools’? Please provide reasoning and reference(s). In no other spinal stabilization study, however, have they been referred as such.

7.	Line 135: The study does not seem to be blind, as the authors imply. Please explain if otherwise. How were the purposes of the study conveyed to the participants, for instance.

8.	Lines 159-161: The authors contend that initial treatment was not in the form of exercise, as the participants were in the acute stage of symptoms. However, from the inclusion criteria this cannot be surmised.

9.	Line 180 & 181: The NRS used in the follow up is not quite the same as the VAS. It does not account for in-between decimal values, usually. For example, a patient might have indicated a pain level of 4 in the NRS, whereas in the  VAS, a value of 3.6 might have been indicated. I understand this was the best available option over the telephone, but it is not correct to change the pain scale administration format as a trial progresses.

10.	From lines 209-213 it is gathered that the study was not adequately powered, as a between-group difference in the VAS scale was not reached in either of the 3 follow up time points.

11.	Lines 218-9: The term ‘Repeated ANOVA analyses’ does not specify which particular ANOVA type was used. A 2 x 4 perhaps for pain & disability?

12.	Line 237: From figure 1 it can be seen that 5 & 4 participants left the TTE & SSE Groups respectively, therefore all participants did not complete the 20 sessions as mentioned in that particular text line. In fact, in line 228, this is clearly stated.

13.	Line 294: One can have non-specific chronic LBP, also.

14.	Figure 2 & 3: SD depiction seems not symmetrical around the mean value. Please amend or explain why.

15.	Significant differences in Figure 3 are not depicted within the graph (by letter b, as indicated in Figure 2).


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: EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC STABILIZATION EXERCISE COMPARED WITH TRADITIONAL TRUNK EXERCISE IN WOMEN WITH NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN: A PILOT RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see the "General comments for the author" section.
Experimental design: Please see the "General comments for the author" section.
Validity of the findings: Please see the "General comments for the author" section.
Additional comments: I want to thank the authors for their hard work to revise the manuscript. The quality of the manuscript is far more improved now.
I have just one minor comment. The authors mentioned that they have presented the standardized mean difference (SMD) with associate confidence intervals. However, I did not find the 95%CIs of the reported effect sizes in table 2. Please report them in Table 2.
Please rename the label in the 6th column as “Mean difference (95% CI)”.  In addition, in column #7, please rename the label as “Effect size (95% CI)”


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: EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC STABILIZATION EXERCISE COMPARED WITH TRADITIONAL TRUNK EXERCISE IN WOMEN WITH NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN: A PILOT RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Acceptable.
Experimental design: Reframed appropriately.
Validity of the findings: The scope of the article will ensure findings are considered appropriately moving forward.
Additional comments: The authors have reframed the study to an appropriate scope.


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: EFFECTIVENESS OF SPECIFIC STABILIZATION EXERCISE COMPARED WITH TRADITIONAL TRUNK EXERCISE IN WOMEN WITH NON-SPECIFIC LOW BACK PAIN: A PILOT RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors have thoroughly revised thiw manuscript and it is now suitable for publication to Peer J.


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: ECO-MORPHOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF LARVAE OF SOLDIER FLIES AND THEIR CLOSEST RELATIVES IN DEEP TIME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Only a fraction of the literature is considered, several references in the text are not cited in the end. Sometimes there is a mixture between observation and conjecture.
Experimental design: fine
Validity of the findings: see main review
Additional comments: Diptera can be a challenging group to work with, being one of the four megadiverse orders. Working on fossil taxa, is much more complicated, because they have only a fraction of the characters discernable than recent specimens. Furthermore, the deeper in time, the more confusing the picture gets, and the closest living relatives might be on a different continent than from where the fossil was found. A solid understanding of the world fauna is therefore necessary to conduct research on extinct taxa. Especially cretaceous fossil can represent basal or extinct lineages, which makes their interpretation very complicated. Another challenge are immatures, which in Diptera have a completely different morphology than adults and only a fraction of the taxa are described, unfortunately often only in a superficial way, making this important field very challenging. The present paper deals with a very challenging field: fossil Diptera larvae. This is a very important contribution and I would like to see the descriptions of these fossils published, although I had some major problems with certain aspects of this paper, and therefore I don’t recommend publication but encourage resubmission.
I think it was a good decision of the authors not to name any of the taxa, because it is nearly impossible to place them in a meaningful genus (or species), and therefore only add names but not necessarily information to the system. Describing the morphology and discussing these fossils is more important than giving them names. Furthermore, I liked the approach of using morphospaces and novel techniques to analyze the fossils.
I have to admit that this was one of the more challenging reviews I have done in a long time and I was torn between being fascinated by the fossils and results and being annoyed about some of the sloppy and superficial aspects of the paper.
I try to give some constructive advice to aspects I am familiar with. Because I am not familiar with the morphometric methods used in the paper, I will not comment on their usefulness or applicability.

In general, the MS seems to be written relatively quickly and therefore shows many small errors, typos etc, which in themselves are not major, but are symptomatic for not spending enough time on the MS. For example, in line 164, listing the published sources of described larvae, the publications are in no order, neither chronological nor alphabetical, they include one reference (Dubrovsky 2004) which does not include a larval description, but at the same time the authors are missing a lot of the relevant publications. Of course, I think this is not the place to evaluate all described larvae, but major publications like Rozskosny (1981, 1982), Dusek & Rozkosny (1967), Schremmer (1951, 1986) Hennig (Die Larvenformen der Dipteren), Stubbs & Darke (2001) and some lesser known, but with very excellent larval drawings or pictures (Stuke 2003, Beuk 1990) were not consider. I am sure adding all these larval outlines into the analysis, might have influenced the results and therefore the discussion. Major catalog works like Woodley 2001, 2011, the catalog of fossil flies by Evenhuis 1994 are not mentioned, although they are relevant. It seems although the authors talk about Stratiomyomorpha, none of the larvae of Xylomyidae or Pantophthalmidae are used in the analysis and the Zhangsolvidae (for which no larva is known) are not even mentioned.
The lack of familiarity with the body of literature covering the immature stages of Stratiomyidae and related groups is one of my major points of critique. As a result, several mistakes crept into the MS, which could (and should) have been easily avoided: There are no predatory Stratiomyidae larvae, which gives the Stratiomyidae a unique biology amongst the Brachycera. Although I have observed Pachygastrinae larvae feeding on life insects, they might just be saprophytic and opportunistic when they encounter some insect they can overpower. Pachygastrinae are not feeding on the wood, they very likely feed on fungus and bacteria and decaying organic matter - so they are not saproxylic. In contrast to the xylophagus Pantophthalmidae, which have larvae boring through living (!) trees. The speculation about aquatic vs terrestrial larvae is difficult, because (as the authors mentioned) lack of a good phylogeny, but very likely all Stratiomyinae are monophyletic and aquatic, while the Nemotilini might be a group which independently developed aquatic larvae, and which is not part of the Stratiomyinae. The fact that some Oxycera larvae are terrestrial and some Ptecticus are aquatic might just be outliers, but worth mentioning.
I am not completely sure how the authors determine the morphotype, but maybe a key to the morphotypes would be helpful.
Concerning the descriptions:
1. A more technical aspect is the redundancy of the descriptions. It would be better to describe the overall morphology (what characterizes a Strat larva) in the beginning and not mentioning certain characters (or the lack of them) for every morphotype. For example, the fact that the mesothorax has no spiracles is mentioned in nearly every morphotype, while none of the Stratiomyidae larvae we know has spiracles in this segment. So why is it worth mentioning? And why is it not mentioned for morphotype 3? Same is true for the “posterior trunk” which “bears no apparent parapodia or creeping welts”. this is an uncommon character in this group and not worth mentioning. I would prefer if a bit more effort is made to describe the structure found in the fossils.
Similar to this aspect is that the authors did not differentiate what is observed and what is conjecture:
The statement that morphotype 5 is “probably metapneustic” is confusing, because the anterior spiracle is not discernable, so therefore it is more likely that it has an anterior spiracle like all other stratiomyomorpha, but which is not visible in the fossil instead of being the only metapneustic Strat larvae.
It is mentioned several times that the body of the fossil is covered in calcium carbonate cuticular scales, which is just an assumption, because they look like the scales of recent Stratiomyidae larvae, which have been chemically analyzed. There are similar looking structure on Ephydridae or Oestridae larvae, which are just thickened chitin.
The authors took in the descriptions a rather unique approach by trying to include crustacean terminology and coming up with a new system of body segmentation. This is not very helpful in two ways: first, the terminology for body parts is not even consistent between Diptera families, and experts of a family are used to a certain terminology, so this can be confusing and harder to compare with the older literature. Second, this can imply phylogenetic relationships of the structure, which are not always proven, like if the mouth-hooks of Diptera larvae are the same structure as the mandibles of decapoda. And writing “antenna [antennula]” does not really add anything to the paper or the description. Terms like “ocular segment” are very novel to the Diptera literature I am familiar with, and while I am not against better or new terminology, I did not see the deeper meaning in this. Especially having in the description: “Post-ocular segment 2 (intercalary segment) without externally recognizable structures” is not a real description, because this body part is not visible, so it is assumed by the authors that this structure should be there, but it is not seen in the specimen. This mixture of structures observed in the fossil and structures expected to be there are not a proper way to write a scientific paper. These structures should be discussed in the beginning, e.g. why the body has 20 segments, what is the post-ocular segment 5 etc. The authors mention they follow Borkent and Sinclair 2017 (another citation which is not in the references) for the terminology, but (if I am correct and this refers to the larval key in the Afrotropical manual) these terms are not included in this paper.

To summarize: The authors need to read and include more literature and incorporate more of the described larvae from the literature, especially Xylomyidae and Pantophthalmidae. They need to justify the unusual use of terminology, be more cautious to distinguish facts from conjecture, be more carful with formatting, citations and redundancy of the text.
This could be an important contribution after some major changes.

Some of the relevant literature:
Beuk, PLT 1990 Het voorkomen van Zabrachia tenella in Nederland. Entmologische Beitraege Amsterdam 50(8) 101-106
ROZKOSNRY., (1982): A biosystematic study of European Stratiomyidae (Diptera). Vol. 1. Introduction, Beridinae, Sarginae and Stratiomyinae. - Series Entomologica, 21: 1-401; The Hague.
ROZKOSNRY., (1983): A biosystematic study of European Stratiomyidae (Diptera). Vol. 2. Clitellariinae, Hermetiinae, Pachgasterinae and Bibliography. - Series Entomologica, 25: 1-431; The Hague.
STUBBS A, & DRAKE, M. (2001): British Soldierflies and their allies. - The British Entomological and Natural History Society, The Dorsett Press, Dorsett, 512 S.
Stuke 2003 Die Stratiomyidae und Xylomyidae Niedersachsens und Bremens, Braunschweiger Naturkundliche Schriften 6(4): 831-856


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: ECO-MORPHOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF LARVAE OF SOLDIER FLIES AND THEIR CLOSEST RELATIVES IN DEEP TIME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In their paper, Baranov et al. describe the diversity of Stratiomyomorpha larvae in the fossil record and report 23 new records belonging two six morphotypes. Given the scarcity of these larvae in the fossil record, the paper presents a very valuable addition to our understanding of the evolutionary history of Stratiomyomorpha. The manuscript is well-written, clearly structured and easy to follow.
The study includes a comprehensive background on the topic, which also describes the different types of extant Stratiomyomorpha larvae and their importance for modern ecosystems. The existing record of body fossils is reported as well. The description of the morphotypes is detailed and backed by convincing figures, which are all of high quality and among the best I know from similar studies on fossil insects. In particular, I like the approach to include colored versions of several photographs to highlight morphological features.
Experimental design: The scientific question is well-defined and relevant. All methods are clear and well described. The photographs, which are the basis of the main findings, are of very high quality.
Validity of the findings: The results are backed by convincing figures. All underlying data is provided.
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: ECO-MORPHOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF LARVAE OF SOLDIER FLIES AND THEIR CLOSEST RELATIVES IN DEEP TIME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: The manuscript "Eco-morphological diversity of larvae of soldier flies and their closer relatives in deep time (#44242)" is a study with a focus on new records of fossil of the Stratiomyomorpha larvae from Cretaceous amber from Myanmar, Eocene Baltic amber, Miocene Dominican amber, and compression fossils from the Eocene of Messel (Germany) and the Miocene of Slovenia. However, I have several concerns about the manuscript.

I strongly suggest that the authors use specialized bibliography on immature insect forms, especially on Stratiomyidae, not on Crustacea! The appropriate literature influences the interpretation of the identification of the body parts of morphotypes and the taxonomic identification and terminology used in the work. The bibliography list below could help the authors to understand better some of the morphological characteristics observed in the described morphotypes. Especially, Figures 1 and 2 must not belong to the Stratiomyiomorpha group. The larvae of Stratiomyiomorpha (Startiomyidae + Xylomyidae sensu Pujol-Luz & Pujol-Luz 2014a) have a head with a cephalic capsule conspicuous. The mouthparts in Stratiomyidae and Xylomyidae are modified into a mandible-maxillar complex with modified brushes (Hennig, 1952; Schremmer, 1951). Mandibles are only present in the subfamily Chiromyzinae (Pujol-Luz & Pujol Luz, 2014b). Pantophthalmidae is an incerta sedis group outside of Stratiomyiomorpha group (Pujol-Luz & Pujol-Luz, 2014a, or infraorder), mainly because of the immature forms (larvae and puparia).

The larvae in Figures 1 and 2 do not have a head with conspicuous cephalic capsules, have no eyes or antennae, nor evidence of brushes. The mouthparts highlighted in the images (Figures 1 and 2) with the metacephalic rod developed, is similar to other modern families of Diptera larvae, but not to Stratiomyiomorpha (Stratiomyidae and Xylomyidae). The other morphotypes are certainly Stratiomyidae and should be described as such. They clearly show the larval cuticle encrusted with mosaic cells of calcium carbonate. Despite this, I do not believe it is possible to identify them at the subfamily level. For example, morphotype 5 was identified as Stratiomyinae subfamily, but it could have been perfectly identified as a Raphiocerinae subfamily (Pujol-luz et al, 2004). Therefore, I do not recommend the publication of the manuscript.

Cook, E. 1949. The evolution of the head in the larva of Diptera. Microentomology 14: 1-57.

Fusari, L.M, Dantas, G.P.S & Pinho, L.C. 2018. Order Diptera Thorp and Covich's Freshwater Invertebrates. 4ª Ed. Elsevier.

Godoi FSP; Pujol-Luz JR. 2018. Family Stratiomyidae In Thorp and Covich's Freshwater Invertebrates. 4ª Ed. Elsevier. 771777.

Hennig, W. 1952. Die Larvenformen der Diptera. 3. Teil. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. 628pp.

Pujol-Luz JR, Pujol-Luz CVA 2014a. Pantophthalmidae. In: Roig-Juñent S, Claps LE, Morrone JJ (Eds) Biodiversidad de Artrópo¬dos Argentinos. Vol. 4. San Miguel de Tucumán, Editorial INSUE UNT, 391–397.

Pujol-Luz JR, Pujol-Luz CVA 2014b. Stratiomyidae. In: Roig-Juñent S, Claps LE, Morrone JJ (Eds) Biodiversidad de Artrópo¬dos Argentinos. Vol. 4. San Miguel de Tucumán, Editorial INSUE UNT, 396–406.

Pujol-Luz, J.R., Xerez, R. & Viana, G.G. 2004. Descrição do pupário de Raphiocera armata (Wiedemann) (Diptera, Stratiomyidae) da Ilha da Marambaia, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

Schremmer, F. 1951. Die -Mundteile der Brachycerenlarven und der Kopfbau der Larve von Stratiomys chamaeleon L. Osterreichische Zoologische Zeitschrift 3(3/4): 326-397.

Sinclair, B.J. 1992. A phylogenetic interpretation of the Brachycera (Diptera) based on the larval mandible and associated mouthpart structures. Systematic Entomology 17: 233-252.

Teskey, H.J, 1976. Diptera Larva associated with trees in North America. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada. 53pp.


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: ECO-MORPHOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF LARVAE OF SOLDIER FLIES AND THEIR CLOSEST RELATIVES IN DEEP TIME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is fairly well written but does have some minor grammatical and typographic errors that will need to be addressed by the Editor.
Experimental design: I’m genuinely surprised these undescribed fossils were found on Ebay. However, what reassurance is provided by the sellers on ebay to confirm the true localities (and therefore ages) of these deposits? This should be addressed in the Materials and Methods.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript is a genuine contribution to the Stratiomyomorpha literature as the authors describe several new morphotype species from various fossils. The authors do well to describe the fossilised larvae fauna when even the extant taxa are relatively understudied. The figures are excellent, including a combination of high-resolution stacked photography and SEM that are well annotated. The authors also provide a thorough discussion of the systematic placement of theses fossils within the Stratiomyomorpha, along with comparison to previously published fossils.

I should note that I am not familiar with the morphology of larvae but extant adults, therefore I can only provide specific feedback regarding the general taxonomy of the world fauna. Saying that, I have provided feedback and comments where possible.

Introduction
Line 30: Any group above genus is referred to as in pleural, i.e. “Stratiomyomorpha are a group…”
Line 32: replace “ingroups” with “families”, i.e. “The major families are…”
A few minor formatting issues are present on Line 36 (space prior to fll stop) and Line 41 (extraneous hyphens) – please correct throughout.
Line 39: please replace “ingroup” with “subfamily” i.e. “Stratiomyinae (subfamily of Stratiomyidae)”
Lines 40 & 43: replace “groups” and “ingroups” with “subfamily”, i.e. Pachygastrinae, Clitellariinae, 	Hermetiinae and Sarginae.
In the second paragraph referring to Stratiomyomorpha larvae, can the authors please provide brief 	examples of the biology of the other families Xylomyidae and Pantophthalmidae?
Line 50: a revision of Hermetia illucens was recently published: Lessard B.D., Yeates D.K. & 	Woodley N.E. 2018. Revision of the Hermetiinae of Australia (Diptera: Stratiomyidae). 	Austral Entomology 58, 122–136 doi: 10.1111/aen.12333 (online publication date 16 April 	2018).
Line 55: please provide the author of the genus on first mention, i.e. Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762. Please do this throughout the manuscript for all genera mentioned for the first time. Thisis important for taxonomic papers.
Line 56: replace “group” with “genus”, i.e. “genus Stratiomys”. Where possible, be specific to taxonomic rank.
Line 58: Please clarify which specific group the authors refer too, i.e. Helminthopsis?
Line 61: replace “records” with “studies” or “deposits with fossilised Stratiomyomorpha larvae” as there are more than five recorded morphotypes from the deposits listed below.
Line 75: please insert references to fossil Odontomyia larvae. Also italicise the genus name here.
In this paragraph can you please add the year range (MY) for each deposit, as this is information is missing from the Burmese amber, Eastern German and Isle of Wright deposits, but provided for the Lerida and Randecker Maar deposits.
Line 76: please elaborate on why larval forms are crucial for Holometabola, or state explicitly that the exploitation of various aquatic and terrestrial substrates has potentially led to their hyper diversification, including beetles, wasps, etc.
Line 80: Can authors state how many new morphospecies are described in the paper. It might be nice to also include a brief summary of the depositions where these new fossils were found, i.e. “… based on new fossil specimens found in deposits including Burmese amber, xyz”.
There should be a discussion on the larval autapomorphic morphological characters that defined the Stratiomyomorpha (i.e. see Line 568 from Discussion).

Results
Morphotype 1 – should the mite be mentioned in a Remarks section?
Discussion
Line 680: capitalise Table 1.
Line 686: correct “morphotype.s” and similar typographic errors throughout manuscript
Line 687: explain in text ‘push of the past’ reference.
Line 790: Inopus is mispelt
Line 805: remove “(xxx)” or replace with reference.

Figures
Scale bar of Figure 10 is difficult to read – perhaps place a white background behind it as in other figures.
There is no figure legend provided in Figure 11.