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

Input:
Title: SOIL CARBON, NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS ECOLOGICAL STOICHIOMETRY SHIFTS WITH TREE SPECIES IN SUBALPINE PLANTATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English standard is adequate but would be improved by the services of a professional editor. I have made some minor comments to improve English throughout but have not made this my aim.
The references are sufficient, formatting of citations and corrections in the reference list are needed.
Structure is adequate and raw data provided - however there needs to additional clarification in the raw data provided.

Additional information is provided in my general comments to the author.
Experimental design: Hypotheses are posed and meaningful, however declines in soil nutrients with increasing soil depth are well-established so that findings in this area are not novel - a greater focus needs to be attention on how tree species moderate the soil depth effects.
The experimental design needs greater description and statistical analysis and presentation needs attention.

Additional information is provided in my general comments to the author.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated, but these findings are lost in the excessive description of results - the focus needs to be on the major findings rather than listing all significant results. The abstract would be improved by translating major findings described in the conclusion.
Some of the findings may need to be revised depending on the detail of the experimental design (that is lacking) - with possible implications for pseudo-replication.

Additional information is provided in my general comments to the author.
Additional comments: ABSTRACT
The abstract does not seem to specifically address each of the three hypotheses posed in the introduction.
L19, remove ‘greatly’ (non-descript)

INTRODUCTION
L38-41, The first sentence seems incomplete (missing ‘regulate’ perhaps) and the second comes across as a statement of fact without adding to the message of the first paragraph. For example, what are the consequences of N and P deficiencies (the fact that C:N, C:P ratios increase is self-evident)? These two sentences could follow the first sentence in the paragraph, with consequences on N, P deficiencies/excess to follow. This would improve on the current disjointed nature of the paragraph.
L73, what are ‘better’ soil nutrient conditions?
L75, dos this mean that climate, topography, elevation are consistent across the different plantations examined?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
L98, reference for evidence of this?
L103-104, more detail is required for the sampling strategy and in particular whether there were multiple plantations for each species, or whether the three plots were located within a single plantation of each species. Plantation size, the relative location of plots from each other and the relative location of plantations to each other are all important. These each have a role to play on possible spatial autocorrelation – which is ideally considered either as part of your experimental design, or within the statistical analyses. There may be different underlying factors within each plantation type that are dictating your results above and beyond that of species effects. If sampling is limited to one plantation of each species then the sampling approach could be considered pseudo-replication with flow on effects to the applicability of results (i.e. limited to a ‘case study’). Please provide a more detailed description of your sampling design and possible implications (e.g. in relation to pseudo-replication).
Given one hypotheses relates to broadleaf species, you should make clear to the international audience which of the examined species were broadleaved.
L106, what are the layers of understorey vegetation (sampling categories) that were sampled?
L114, what do you mean by treatment? It’s not clear how many bulk density samples were retained and analysed for each 10 x 10 m plot? It’s also not clear to what temperature the soil bulk density samples were dried (air dried rather than dried to constant weight?)
L115, was soil bulk density corrected for gravel/stone content, if so how was volume estimated?
L124-126, please confirm that contents were used as the raw data includes results for concentrations.
L136, is this a valid approach given significant interaction effects between tree species and soil depth (i.e. more appropriate to examine for example, tree species effects within depth)?
L138, what are the plant community indices used?
RESULTS
L150, avoid descriptors such as ‘greatly’
L153, you mean ‘responsive’?
L150-155, this could be shortened since they each had significant tree / depth / interaction effects.
L157, ‘of’, not ‘on’
L157-184, rather than detailing each significant effect and a laundry list of results, aim to communicate the main message(s), e.g. whether stoichiometry in plantations differed to that in shrubland, whether this differed with time and soil depth. The level of detail currently provided means that the message gets lost.
L188, are these results across both years? Is this regression rather than correlation? Please provide a table of results for the correlation coefficients (to indicate direction of relationship also – and results for variables not provided). In the methods you need to provide some detail on what components of biodiversity were used to calculate diversity indices.
L188-210, similar to earlier comments, this section needs to be shortened to focus on the main results.
DISCUSSION
L212-215, repetitive, please revise
L212-220, this is introductory material that would be useful to include in your introduction to strengthen arguments around the utility of stochiometric ratios. Better to begin your discussion with a statement of the most significant findings.
L221-226, this is descriptive information and while interesting, how does it address the three hypotheses posed in the introduction? Ideally you should structure your discussion to clearly address the hypotheses posed in the introduction [this is done further down in the discussion – better to get ‘straight to the point’].
L236, can you add to discussion about differences in litter quality, e.g. > lignin content in conifers relative to broadleaved species.
L250, ‘what other medium’, what about the role of decomposers in vertical redistribution of soil nutrients?
L267, was soil bulk density measured through time (data file only shows one year of collection).
CONCLUSION
Draws out the main messages well – these messages need to be better incorporated into the abstract.
CITATIONS
These are inconsistent throughout and need to be reviewed for consistency.
TABLE 1
‘C-density’ is described in the header but not used as a column identifier; revise. Please place the plantation abbreviation in the first row of the associated data – at present (i.e. middle justified) it is difficult to tell where one plantation starts and ends. Ensure also consistency in decimal places within units.
TABLE 2
‘species’ not ‘spices’
FIGURE 1
The use of superscripts in the figures (capital, lower case letters) needs to be corrected. The use of upper and lower case is only appropriate where there are significant interaction effects (i.e. tree species x time). Where there are no interaction effects, tree species effects need to be across both years (as effects are consistent) – for example for 0-10 cm, letters should be consistent within years for each plantation as there were no interaction effects.
FIGURE 2
Is this across both years? The raw data doesn’t provide any bulk density (for example) data for 2007.
RAW DATA
For the basic information, please provide plantation identifiers to match those in the ‘CNP’ tab.
For 2007, data is limited to ratios, please provide the complete data set (i.e. to match 2018).


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

Input:
Title: SOIL CARBON, NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS ECOLOGICAL STOICHIOMETRY SHIFTS WITH TREE SPECIES IN SUBALPINE PLANTATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I have read the paper again, significant improvements have been found in the R version. I only have few points here.

1.	L138, increase full name of SOC and TN.
2.	L200, the title is too long to understand.
3.	References: increase some new papers, such as 2019-2020.
4.	The English expression of the title and note in Figures and Tables should be carefully checked, many grammar mistakes.


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

Input:
Title: SOIL CARBON, NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS ECOLOGICAL STOICHIOMETRY SHIFTS WITH TREE SPECIES IN SUBALPINE PLANTATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript could be further improved by attention to grammar. Table S1, S3 not referred to in text. Corrections needed in Figs and Tables.
Experimental design: Further detailed required in relation to spatial locations of plantations - see comments to authors.
Validity of the findings: There is a mismatch between the statistics and results - this needs to be addressed.
Additional comments: GENERAL COMMENTS
There are a number of outstanding items in relation to presentation of results and discussion material that still require attention. Detailed comments provided that I hope the authors find useful.
TITLE
Revise: Soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus ecological …..
ABSTRACT
L23, plantations NOT plantation
L24, ecologically NOT ecological
L25, remove space before comma
L27, ‘and’ before Cercidiphyllum
L28, ‘a’ before ‘subalpine’
I will refrain from further English corrections – there is still some work to be done in this regard.
L29, not clear what topsoil and subsoil is (the topsoil could be 0-30 cm, and subsoil greater than 30 cm, clarify)
L31, what is ‘standing litter stock’? Litter is not standing biomass?
KEY WORDS
Revise to key words rather than phrases, suggest ‘tree species’ is not useful
INTRODUCTION
L59, regarded NOT regard
L60, nutrients NOT nutrient
L67, this is not a sentence
L75, this is not a sentence
L77, remove ‘that’; C:N:P NOT C/N/P
L78, It is not surprising that results vary among studies – this is true for all studies of soil forest nutrition, soils, plant-soil feedbacks – you need a greater argument for the significance of your study than results vary across studies.
L81, but your study does not examine ‘spatial pattern’?
L86, with NOT will
There is no mention of ‘restoration’ in the introduction or discussion – this creates a disjoint between the study purpose, findings and the all important abstract – please address.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
L104-117, there are still some outstanding points in relation to the initial review that need to be addressed, specifically, “Plantation size, the relative location of plots from each other and the relative location of plantations to each other are all important. These each have a role to play on possible spatial autocorrelation – which is ideally considered either as part of your experimental design, or within the statistical analyses. There may be different underlying factors within each plantation type that are dictating your results above and beyond that of species effects.”
I suggest you provide detail on the size of the areas sampled and include a figure in the appendix to indicate relative location of plantations / sites from each other.
L169, 0-30 cm NOT 0-30cm, maximum NOT maximal
RESULTS
Previous comments in relation to avoiding the use of descriptors such as ‘greatly’ are still outstanding, e.g. L175 (and address throughout).
L176, ‘responsive responsible’?
L179-187, the description of the results are not consistent with the statistics. The only significant interaction between species and time is for 10-20 cm depth, however time x tree species differences are also referred to for 0-10 cm depth despite no interaction? There is no reference to 20-30 cm results for C:N.
L188-191, what about significant species effects for 20-30 cm?
L192-199, but results for 0-10 cm are consistent across time?
L200-202, this is too long for a sub-heading
L208, by ‘arbor’ do you mean ‘tree’ – arbor can have a number of meanings
L218, 221, 223, remove decimal places
DISCUSSION
Given the discussion presents hypothesis 1, 2 and 3, these should be clearly indicated as such in the introduction.
L226-231, how do results compare with other subalpine forests?
L245, litter quality, and greater lignin content of conifer litter relative to broadleaf species is critical here – expand.
L249-266, there is no discussion of depth effects in the results section – address.
L249, Fig 1 doesn’t not show significance of depth effects, Table 2 most relevant here.
L254, not clear what you mean by ‘more sensitive’?
L256, ‘other medium, meaning?
L268-279, this Is largely results material and repetitive of the results – more discussion needed here.
TABLES/FIGURES
Table 1, what does ‘canopy’ refer to
Figure 1, the use of letters to indicate significance of differences is still not correct. For example in Fig 1D, tree species differences are consistent across time and with no species x time interaction – this is not what the letters indicate. Similarly Fig 1A, tree species differences are consistent across time, but the letters suggest tree species differences in 2018, but none for 2007. Address all panels and correct. Fig 1G also incorrect.
Figure 2, insert space before (0-30cm) and space before ‘cm’, similar for Figure 3
Table S1 and S3 are not referred to


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: PHYSIOLOGICAL ASPECTS AND ENERGETIC CONTRIBUTION IN 20S:10S HIGH-INTENSITY INTERVAL EXERCISE AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear language and adequate structure.
Experimental design: The experimental design is presented clearly.
Validity of the findings: The assumptions and limitations of the methods used should be discussed.
Additional comments: The idea is interesting and useful for practitioners. The authors should consider some serious methodological issues. 1. The method used to estimate energy contribution is based on several assumptions that have not reported in the methods, 2. The duration of each protocol and between groups is not reported and this may affect the recovery curve from which you have calculated the energy contribution. 3. Using this specific ergometer you need to report how power was measured when cadence was not constant (90-100 rpm). Moreover, the results section is full of meaningless numbers that distract reading. I suggest you to insert the numbers in the existing tables and report the actual findings in this section indicating significance or not (ony).

Specific comments
Avoid using the term “Tabata protocol”
Line 41. Explain the abbreviations
Lines 58-59. Is this ergometer valid? How the power was measured?
Line 72-75. Use “:” instead of “=”
Line 83. kgf.m is not the correct units of measure.
Line 83-84. Given the non steady cadence you need to explain how power output was measured with this ergometer
Line 94. Change to “every three breaths”
Lines 119-133. You need to provide equations and assumptions for all calculations. The references you provide are secondary publications. You need to refer the initial works of the approach you have used providing appropriate equations. Moreover, why not using the MAOD instead of EPOC? You need to explain your selection and the limitations of the method in the discussion section. The assumption of equating lactate with oxygen uptake is true during submaximal steady state exercise but not during sprinting.
Line 120. How you have done these calculations. You need to explain.
Line 123. What do you mean? “…expressed as rest values,…”
Line 126. Campos et al. is used this assumption. They have not introduced this assumption which stands only for submaximal exercise.
Line 224. You should report the duration of all testing sessions for each group for a better evaluation of results.
Lines 232-234. Or because a greater amount of lactate was metabolized within the muscle during the longer duration efforts. Discuss it.
Line 266. Do not start a sentence using “In which”


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: PHYSIOLOGICAL ASPECTS AND ENERGETIC CONTRIBUTION IN 20S:10S HIGH-INTENSITY INTERVAL EXERCISE AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Overall there are several grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. The authors are encouraged to perform a thorough edit upon resubmission.

2.	The authors have cited previous studies relevant to the current manuscript. However, some recent articles have not been cited:
a.	Lines 25-26: Recent cycle training studies using Tabata: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28177701; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27936084; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29733694; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26664271
Experimental design: 1.	Lines 62-65: I commend the authors for performing an a priori sample size calculation, however, could the authors specify the parameters used in the calculation? For instance, what is “aerobic contribution” (oxygen consumption during Tabata protocols?) and what are “the two conditions”. Provide details here so the reader doesn’t have to refer back to Lopes-Silva 2015 to find this information.

2.	Lines: 69-70: Was any information collected to confirm that cyclists were actively/currently training? If so please include this as eligibility criteria.

3.	Lines 143-144: Can the authors comment on how distinct they think the two groups are? As prefaced in the introduction, the study was designed to compare “non-athletes” and highly trained cyclists.  However, mean VO2max was not higher in highly trained athletes and the mean and SD VO2max values (lines 73-75) suggest that some athletes had a lower VO2max than some “non-athletes”.

4.	Lines 145-147: The authors should report the specific results from the 2-way ANOVA (i.e. which outcomes had significant effects). Currently, it reads as if all these variables had significant main group and intensity effects, which (according to Table 1) is not true.
Validity of the findings: 1.	Table 2 is missing a footnote to define the * symbols.

2.	Lines: 207-208: I believe main finding #1 pertains to the observation that aerobic contribution was the greatest source of relative energy contribution (Figure 1A), but this main finding is unclear as currently written.  Similarly, the authors should clarify main finding number 3. In cyclists, 130%PPO promoted higher VO2 compared to 115% and 170%. As currently written, main finding #3 may be misinterpreted to mean a difference in VO2 between cyclists and non-athletes during the 130% PPO session.

3.	Line 228-229: Given the observation that increasing intensity increased relative but not absolute anaerobic contribution, graphically reporting the absolute energy contribution data may help illustrate this finding (instead of in table format)? Showing absolute energy contribution in a bar graph as a separate panel beside relative contribution (Figure 1A) may be a more clear approach to illustrating this point than having the reader compare between Figure 1A and Table 2.
Additional comments: 1.	Lines 27-29: Can the authors provide more regarding the limitations of previous work? E.g. expand on what is meant by “limitation in describing effort intensity”.


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: PHYSIOLOGICAL ASPECTS AND ENERGETIC CONTRIBUTION IN 20S:10S HIGH-INTENSITY INTERVAL EXERCISE AT DIFFERENT INTENSITIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Several limitations should be reported in the discussion. The selection of the protocol for intensities 115, 130 and 170% calculation is not the same as that used by Tabata et al., (1996). The oxygen debt instead of accumulated oxygen deficit was measured.
Additional comments: The authors have improved the paper. There are some points for further consideration. Several limitations should be reported in the discussion. The selection of the protocol for intensities 115, 130 and 170% calculation is not the same as that used by Tabata et al., (1996). The oxygen debt instead of accumulated oxygen deficit was measured.
Line 98. Was this protocol similar to the protocol used by Tabata et al., (1996) for the measurement of power corresponding to VO2max? This is critical as your comparison is based on this specific Tabata protocol.
Line 106. You have defined  iVO2max in the introduction. Is it the same as the pVO2max? How 115, 130, 170% of iVO2max was calculated? By extrapolation of the power vs. VO2 relationship ? or as a percentage of pVO2max. These are not the same. You need to clarify and discuss this as a limitation for the sustainability of repetitions (3-4 in your study, 7-8 in other studies)
Line 112. The duration of each protocol should be reported in the results section.
Line 131. Specify if the peak value was used for the calculations.


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: GENOMIC SIGNATURES OF GLOBALLY ENHANCED GENE DUPLICATE ACCUMULATION IN THE MEGADIVERSE HIGHER DIPTERA FUELING INTRALOCUS SEXUAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See general comments for the authors.
Experimental design: See general comments for the authors.
Validity of the findings: See general comments for the authors.
Additional comments: This study examines the occurrence of duplicated genes in the genomes of four holometabolous insects, including Drosophila melanogaster, Anopheles gambiae, Tribolium castaneum and Apis melifera. Highly duplicated gene families (above 6 paralogs) have been excluded. 698 gene families with lineage-specific duplications in Drosophila are reported compared 315 in Anopheles, 386 in Tribolium, and 223 in Apis. The Drosophila duplications are further explored by examining their synonymous substitution rates, GO terms, conservation in a brachyceran outgroup (hessian fly) and in various schizophoran species. Based on these analyses it is concluded that Brachycera experienced an accelerated retention rate of duplicated genes. Moreover, based on GO term analyses the authors suggest a significant enrichment of gene duplications related to energy metabolism. All of 17 gene families related energy metabolism found in the D. melanogaster lineage included previously known diverged germ-line specific paralogs, which leads the authors to conclude that the increased retention of gene duplications in the brachyceran lineage is not a result evolution of fast flight. Instead, they propose that germline subfunctionalization within these gene families could have resulted in intralocus sexual conflict resolution, thereby promoting clade size.

Critique
The finding that retention of gene duplicates is significantly higher in the D. melanogaster lineage (Schizophora lineage?) than in the mosquito, beetle or wasp lineage is interesting but there are a few issues in the author’s narrative that need clarification.

1.	I do not understand how the authors can make any generalizations for the Brachycera clade without analyzing any basal-branching brachyceran lineages. For example, the data presented in this study are compatible with an acceleration of gene duplicate retention in Schizophora, Cyclorrhapha, or Brachycera. Cyclorrhapha are well supported and many changes have occurred in their stem lineage. This also applies to Schizophora, which underwent an accelerated radiation. This makes any discussion of what may have driven this evolutionary pattern more difficult. In my opinion this is an important limitation of the study. It would be appropriate to acknowledge and explain this limitation and to tune down speculations, in particular (but not only) at the end of the abstract.
2.	The authors seem to rule out that the gene duplications affecting energy metabolism could have evolved in the context of fast flight. That might be the case but I do not follow the logic of their argument. Can’t this hypothesis be reconciled with an “out of the testis” framework for the origin of new genes, which by the way may not only apply to the 17 gene families with a link energy metabolism? A better test of the fast-flight-hypothesis would have been to examine gene duplication in basal-branching Brachycera.

Some minor points:
1.	In the method section, I found it difficult to understand how gene duplications have been encoded. The authors could improve this section, e.g. by assigning in the specific examples each number in the code (1:0 etc) a specific meaning.
2.	Line 72-75: the authors should also consider Lan & Prichard (Science 352, 1009-1013).
3.	There are several typos in the manuscript, e.g. line 88, 141 (italics), 175, 188.
4.	The reference to He (line 56) seems inappropriate. Why is the directive axis of Nematostella treated as a longitudinal axis? Does this study provide evidence for the orthologly of the Hox genes examined in  Nematostella to those in bilaterians?


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: GENOMIC SIGNATURES OF GLOBALLY ENHANCED GENE DUPLICATE ACCUMULATION IN THE MEGADIVERSE HIGHER DIPTERA FUELING INTRALOCUS SEXUAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript, Bao and Friedrich expanded the work in which they previously showed that Drosophila and other species from Brachycera group show an increased number of gene duplicates. To assess this, the authors focussed on duplications with less than 6 paralogs and compared with well annotated holometabolous species: mosquito, bee and red flour beetle.
From the gene families selected (with representatives in at least 3 of the 4 species), D. melanogaster has almost 700 vs a range between 386 (beetle)-221 (bee) in the other 3 species. They also investigated the evolution of these paralogs (synonymous substitutions) as a proxy for the age of expansions and found that more than 90% of duplicates have an ancient origin.
The authors also looked at the biological function of the duplicates (GO term enrichment). Drosophila duplicated gene families have GO categories related to Energy metabolism. Bao and Friedrich also checked other dipterans outside or inside the brachycerans to see whether those duplications were Brachycera specific or Diptera specific. All duplications preceded drosophilids and four gene family expansions were very ancient. They also looked gene expression using the ModENCODE database. The energy metabolism related gene families included germline-specific paralogs, which is an indicative of intralocus sexual conflict resolution. As examples, they showed the case of Hsp60 with subfunctionalization plus high divergence in the germline paralog and Hex gene family which does not fit into the intralocus sexual conflict resolution hypothesis.
The study is an expansion of previous work from the authors that will be relevant for the fields of evolutionary biology, evolutionary genomics and researchers working in the evolution of insects. The experiments are appropriate and properly performed and the results are clearly written along the manuscript. Therefore, I recommend the publication of this manuscript in PeerJ. However, I have some comments that should be addressed prior publication:

1. I am missing any mention (in the introduction and discussion) to the most recent literature regarding gene content and genomics in insects, especially the Genome Biology paper “Gene content evolution in the arthropods” and since one of the authors in this work is also a co-author in the GB paper. The results showed in this GB article are extremely relevant for this manuscript, thus, they should be mentioned and discussed.

2. On the other hand, there are several references to Li et al. 2018, which, in my opinion, concluded many WGD in Hexapoda based on very weak analyses (Genes ages inferred by Ks, age distribution of duplicates, mostly from transcriptomes data, no syntenic information…), thus, I recommend to remove this citation, or at least, to include also the response from Nakatani and McLysaght (PNAS, 2019) questioning the validity of that article.

3. lines 72- 75. Authors could comment on the recent findings from Marletaz et al. 2018 about the relevance of specialization of paralogs after WGD in vertebrates
Experimental design: The experiments are appropriate and properly performed
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: GENOMIC SIGNATURES OF GLOBALLY ENHANCED GENE DUPLICATE ACCUMULATION IN THE MEGADIVERSE HIGHER DIPTERA FUELING INTRALOCUS SEXUAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed the comments I had in the previous round of revision. Thus, I recommend its publication in PeerJ.
However, there are still some typos throughout the text and some errors in scientific species names (which should be in italics), therefore the manuscript should be carefully revised
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed the comments I had in the previous round of revision. Thus, I recommend its publication in PeerJ.
However, there are still some typos throughout the text and some errors in scientific species names (which should be in italics), therefore the manuscript should be carefully revised in that matter


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: INSTRUMENTAL VALIDITY AND INTRA/INTER-RATER RELIABILITY OF A NOVEL LOW-COST DIGITAL PRESSURE ALGOMETER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: Manuscript Number: PeerJ 46274
Title: Instrumental validity and intra/inter-rater reliability of a novel low-cost digital pressure algometer

Main comments
This study aimed to assess the instrumental validity, the intra- and inter-rater reliability of an inexpensive digital adapted pressure algometer. The aim is of interest for clinical research related to musculoskeletal disorders.
The paper is generally well written and of interest. There are few flaws that need to be addressed in a revision and this is definitely feasible. It is erroneous to report pressure in Kg or N – the authors should comply with the SI meaning that pressure is reported in Pa (or kPa). Then all results related force expressed in Kg or N needs to be converted into Pa (see e.g. https://www.convertunits.com/from/kg/cm2/to/kpa ). Make also changes elsewhere (abstract, introduction and discussion). More the choice of force platform and load cell should be justified better. Finally, it would be good how the re-calibration should be done so potential drift does not influence PPT collected longitudinally.
See below for other suggestions for improving the manuscript. Reduce evt the number of abbreviations.

Specific comments
In general, make clear if PA relates to the expensive or cheap algometer.
Line 52-53 “quantify the pain level and the recovery of underlying problems or soreness levels” PA does not quantify pain levels – it is more appropriate to write “mechanical sensitivity to pain” see a recent PPT review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29403305.  It probably better to refer PPT as a semi-objective method (the patient still reports when pressure turns into pain)
Line 54 define expensive/inexpensive
Paragraph equipment
It is a bit unclear why both force platform and load cell are used considering the current goal? Express 1N=1/g where g=9.82 ms/s^2
Line Did the rater/participant were familiarized with the experimental procedure? Making a PPT at another body location
Line 109-110 Add demographics of the men
Line 111 IMC?
Line 130 temporal summation issue
Line 144 why choosing an ICC(1,1)? Method?
Did you correct for multiple comparison (t-test)
Results
Report results with the same number of decimals
How are the ICC values interpreted? Add a reference (e.g. Landis and Koch 1977)
Discussion
Add also studies mentioning the use of PPT in rehabilitation studies (e.g. rehabilitation, training or ergonomics interventions)
Line 203 add threshold at the end of the sentence
Line 205 add also information concerning spatial aspects, i.e. information the changes in PPT as a function of location – see also line 228 about temporal summation. Here, the authors could consider adding aspect related to spatial summation too.
Check references for normal/capital letters in the reference list
Figures change to SI units (kPa)
Add also a table with the measured values PPTs, CI and differences. See Walton et al (2011)


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: INSTRUMENTAL VALIDITY AND INTRA/INTER-RATER RELIABILITY OF A NOVEL LOW-COST DIGITAL PRESSURE ALGOMETER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Grammatically, the paper is poorly written and it is often challenging to extract the meaning from various sections, particularly the introduction and the discussion. I would suggest having someone review the paper for English fluency prior to resubmission.
The flow of the paper is further complicated by a lack of structured organization within each section, making it challenging to follow.

The introduction should be the clearest part of a scientific article and unfortunately this paper's introduction is very confusing. The reader should be presented with thorough background information as well as a clear description of what is being studied in the present paper. The fact that a pressure algometer was used on both a load cell and force platform is hinted at but is not made clear in the introduction, and in fact it does not become clear until reading the materials and methods.  In addition, there is no clear description of how the adapted portable hanging scale is different from currently used pressure algometers. Some of the content of the introduction should be condensed into one sentence to state the potential use of it in low income countries instead of mentioning this multiple times. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) is explained well in the beginning of the introduction.

There is inconsistency in the manner in which authors of other studies are cited throughout the paper, especially in the discussion.
Experimental design: The study is very interesting, and indeed, has the potential for a real clinical impact.

Unfortunately, the language overcomplicates the description of the study design. I am not sure what is the relevance of reporting the how people were trained on non-consecutive days/hours?

Specific comments in attachment.
Validity of the findings: The hypothesis stated in the discussion is not the same as the hypothesis used in the introduction. Please clarify.

The authors should explain clearly the differences between commercially used PA and the equipment they used in this study ( adapted PA?). In addition, it is important that they are consistent in referring to their equipment as an adapted PA as in the caption of Figure 1. There are multiple times in this paper where the adapted PA is referred to simply as the PA.
Additional comments: This is a well designed study with the potential for clinical impact. The problems are not with the methodology, but with the writing and presentation of the findings. Although this paper requires significant editing to improve the language and overall flow, I believe that will make it much more accessible and easier to follow when reading it.


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

Input:
Title: INSTRUMENTAL VALIDITY AND INTRA/INTER-RATER RELIABILITY OF A NOVEL LOW-COST DIGITAL PRESSURE ALGOMETER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: see below
Experimental design: see below
Validity of the findings: see below
Additional comments: The MS has improved but it is difficult to see what was changed... moreover, the MS lacks still of scientific rigor...
here are points that need further attention:
- the authors need to correct erroneous use og unit's abbreviations: Kg/kg - for PPT, it should be kPa not KPa. check the entire paper
- mention how  to transform Newtons (N/cm2) or kilograms of force (Kgf/cm2) per squared cm to kPa in the introduction.
- cite other reliability papers for PPT assessment - make an additional search
- force platform. gold standard for what? not clear a load cell can also measure force!
- concerning re-calibration: how often is this necessary? Somedic provide a weight resulting in a 100kPa reading. this is recommended to check every time one use the pressure algometer
- what is meant by compression measurements?


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: INSTRUMENTAL VALIDITY AND INTRA/INTER-RATER RELIABILITY OF A NOVEL LOW-COST DIGITAL PRESSURE ALGOMETER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Basic reporting

Overall, the efforts undertaken by the authors to improve this paper appear substantial and it has improved considerably compared to the initial version. However, my primary concern remains that there are frequent and consequential errors in grammar, diction, and syntax that ultimately fail to construct a narrative that is easy to follow. While the structure of the introduction has been improved quite nicely, the discussion remains disjointed and confusing, forcing the reader too often to draw their own conclusions as to why the authors included the examples or references. The “procedures” section is also disorganized. For instance, the section regarding intra- and inter-rater reliability begins by describing which muscle was tested by two raters. It then transitions to describing the training protocol. It then transitions back to describing a third rater, however it is unclear if at this point the authors are still describing the training or have returned to discussing the initial experiment.
Experimental design: Experimental design

My original comments remain true. This is an interesting study with the potential for real clinical impact. The study is well designed. However, it is the description of the study that requires improvement.
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: Specific comments

Line 36-36 –  The P values should be reported (at least in parentheses) in addition to the qualifiers “moderate” and “excellent” or else these appear to be  subjective descriptions.

Line 39 –   “valid intra-rater reliable measures” does not make sense. It is possible this should read “valid and reliable…” however given the later descriptions in this manuscript, I am not sure that this author’s intent

Line 52 – The word “instrument” is more appropriate than “equipment,” and replace “on” with “for”

Line 65 – Replace “equipment” with instrument.” The mechanism is more appropriately described as “suspended from an attachment” than “in a suspended manner”

Line 70-71 – Confusing description of the validation process. A “score” implies either a standardized or specific rating system, which likely differs depending on what is being tested and in what manner it is being tested.

Line 74 – Incorrect use of comma after “validity” – consider “as well as” or similar

Line 78-79 – Remove “current” as this is implied by the fact that a hypothesis is being discussed in the introduction. This sentence should state “…algometer is valid and reliable to be considered an acceptable method…” or similar. The purpose of this paper is to describe the use of this tool and demonstrate its use – not to set forth a new standard of care/measurement.

Line 106 – Numerals less than 10 should be written (ex. “two” not “2”)

Line 108 – Rephrase as “alcohol consumption within five days prior to…”

Line 113-118 – This is a confusing transition from describing the test to the training protocol (which by definition must have taken place prior to the test being performed). To maintain a structured flow, it is strongly advised that all training descriptions be completed before discussing how the tests were carried out.

Line 122 – “Pieces of information” should be described as “data”

Line 123-124 – Introduction of a third rater at this time is another example of how the flow of this section is harmed by the writing. This should have been described immediately following the description of the first two raters without transitioning first to describe training. The transition in 124 to raters in training further confuses the issue as it becomes even less clear if the author is describing the training process or the experiment at this time

Line 129 – Delete “positioned.” Which sites are being referenced? It is assumed to be the middle deltoid, but this should be stated again

Line 144-146 – Multiple instances of “measures” being used instead of “measurements”

Line 146 – “Validation” should be used in place of “validity”

Line 151-153 – This should be stated in the abstract instead of the subjective terms used

Line 173 – The use of “both” implies two. However, earlier three raters were described. It should be clarified as to which portion of the test this is referring to. In general, the description of the rate training vs. the actual experiment makes interpretation of the results unnecessarily complicated.

Line 198-199 – “…statistically significant results for the expected correlation of both equipment in measuring the same construct” should be rephrased using more straightforward language to emphasize the findings

Line 200 – Replace “has validity and reliability” with “is both valid and reliable enough…”

Line 202 – This is better described as an “acceptable alternative” rather than simply an alternative

Line 208 – Should “prospective” be “objective” – unclear what author’s intent is

Line 209 – Pressure algometry is better described as a diagnostic aid, rather that implied as a primary method of obtaining a diagnosis

Lines 212, 232 – Replace “include” with “utilize”


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: INSTRUMENTAL VALIDITY AND INTRA/INTER-RATER RELIABILITY OF A NOVEL LOW-COST DIGITAL PRESSURE ALGOMETER
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This version of the manuscript shows a significant improvement in structure and overall writing. It is clear and much easier to follow than previous versions. There are a few instances in which the literature is referenced in an inconsistent manner (see the attached document for specific lines). These should be addressed prior to publication.
Experimental design: No additional comments.
Validity of the findings: No additional comments
Additional comments: The efforts undertaken to improve the English and to provide clarity and structure to this manuscript are clear and I appreciate the effort put forth. The manuscript has improved dramatically as a result.


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: MUTATIONS OF SARS-COV-2 NSP14 EXHIBIT STRONG ASSOCIATION WITH INCREASED GENOME-WIDE MUTATION LOAD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this bioinformatics work the authors analyze current SARS-COV-2 libraries and identify that the most frequently observed mutations
for four proteins in the RNA synthesis complex over time in comparison to wildtype
isolates. Specifically, their results suggest mutations in nsp14, an error-correcting exonuclease protein, have the strongest association with increased mutation load. The findings are important but one can wonder the following :
1. All exonucleases have a high error rate and vary significantly from organism to organism. Therefore one wonders why to expect different in viruses. Which is the mutation rate per Kbp or Mbp?
2. How these findings compare with current findings for D614G mutation in SARS-CoV-2 which is becoming infamous for its rising dominance worldwide?
Experimental design: Methodologies
The authors in the design and description of their methods need to be more analytical and exact.
I list below some points
'... obtained from the GISAID
77 EpiCoV database (date of accession: 17 June, 2020) were filtered to remove low-coverage or incomplete genomes, aligned against the reference genomic sequence for SARS-CoV-2'. Which is the reference genomic sequence? How alignment was made.
In general in many cases, their methods section is not complete and self-explanatory.
Validity of the findings: The validity of the findings and results will be better established after the above corrections. In addition, it is not really clear this increased mutation load of it offers to the virus evolutionary advantage also? What about interactions with host?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4934755/
Additional comments: The authors need to explain better some aspects of their work as described above and provide better solid evidence for the original nature of their findings and comparison with current advances almost every day in the field.
For example, see also for other coronavirus
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/30/9436


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: MUTATIONS OF SARS-COV-2 NSP14 EXHIBIT STRONG ASSOCIATION WITH INCREASED GENOME-WIDE MUTATION LOAD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The COVID-19 pandemic has mobilized researchers worldwide in a somewhat unprecedented way. This article uses currently available literature to provide information that can help elucidate the continuing evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and assessing viral strains' mutability. The paper's structure adheres to the current journal's standards and uses concise and professional language.
Experimental design: The methodology followed throughout the paper is precise, and the consideration of calculating mutation densities for non-synonymous and synonymous mutations separately is a positive feature. Moreover, the idea of geographical location as a factor to consider while studying the association of each mutation with the presence of MoE mutations is an interesting one, but as stated, briefly in the paper itself, sequencing efforts may influence the results.
Validity of the findings: In summary, though, the information produced by the current article is of high scientific interest, and after some minor revisions, the paper is recommended for publication.
Additional comments: The above mentioned minor revisions include:
Line 40: As of which date are the numbers regarding death and infection relevant? Is it the same as the day the data was obtained from the database?
Lines 132-133: Additional information would be helpful, especially since the N structural protein’s gene is now firstly mentioned in the article. Maybe the authors can specify the differences in the mutational load?
The geographical location data could be addressed more in the conclusions segment, while restating the biases they mentioned in the text before.


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: MUTATIONS OF SARS-COV-2 NSP14 EXHIBIT STRONG ASSOCIATION WITH INCREASED GENOME-WIDE MUTATION LOAD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised manuscript stands much better and the authors have addressed almost all of my concerns. The interaction with host importance , I think it is underestimated.
Experimental design: The design and description is no better and more concise.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid.
Additional comments: The revisions have improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript. I am still though sceptical on the importance of their findings regarding the interaction with host.
In addition, the Figure legends are way too small.
Iam not sure also of this reference can be accepted as a regular citing document since it is in the  bioRxiv.

Dilucca M, Forcelloni S, Georgakilas AG, Giansanti A, Pavlopoulou A. 2020a. Temporal evolution and adaptation of SARS-COV 2 codon usage. bioRxiv:2020.05.29.123976. DOI: 10.1101/2020.05.29.123976.


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: MUTATIONS OF SARS-COV-2 NSP14 EXHIBIT STRONG ASSOCIATION WITH INCREASED GENOME-WIDE MUTATION LOAD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors of the article "Mutations of SARS-CoV-2 nsp14 exhibit strong association with increased genome-wide mutation load" have made a significant effort to address the comments and revisions I suggested.
Experimental design: Experimental design is scientifically sound
Validity of the findings: Validity of the findings is OK
Additional comments: I think that the article "Mutations of SARS-CoV-2 nsp14 exhibit strong association with increased genome-wide mutation load" has been significantly improved and therefore is ready to be published


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PEYTON’S 4-STEP TEACHING APPROACH ON SKILL ACQUISITION OF PROCEDURES IN HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS WITH INTEGRATED META-REGRESSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is clear and unambiguous.  Professional English has been used throughout the manuscript, the abstract is informative, there is a clear description of the methods and the results are reported accurately.  The structure of the introduction and the discussion are adequate.
The bibliography is up to date and the studies, which are mentioned in table 1, are depicted correctly with all the important characteristics that are relevant for this review.  The figures are in good quality and the plots are self-explaining.  The results are relevant to the hypotheses.  An important strength of the review is that the authors managed to deal with the heterogeneity of the available studies through an exact categorization of the outcomes and, importantly, through definition of the comparison groups.
Experimental design: The review is within the scope of the journal, as it refers to both medical and health sciences from the educational point of view. The endpoints are meaningful: Proof on the effectiveness of the Peyton’s approach as an educational principle can facilitate better procedural skills of trainees through modification of institutional teaching standards. Proof on the importance of the low student-to-teacher ratio can also contribute to teaching that is more effective. The methods are well described.
Validity of the findings: There are numerous reports on the superiority of the Peyton’s teaching approach in the acquisition of specific skills, however this review demonstrates that the method can be generally adapted in cases of experienced tutors. Additionally, the limitations in case of peer-teachers are clearly described. The underlying data are available. The results completely support the conclusions
Additional comments: Some minor issues:

Abstract: In the “Background” section both aims of the study are defined. In Line 266 the effectiveness is reported on two outcomes. The authors may choose to include the time-needed-for-procedure variable in the “Results” section of the abstract.

In the introduction (lines 100-101) the time-for-teaching variable is referred. A comment in the included studies section of the results may state the fact that the time-for-teaching was identical in both groups (i.e. 3h in Grandl-Dietsch 2019, 90 min in Grandl-Dietsch 2016 …).

In the Introduction (lines 63-65) a definition is given for the procedural skills. This definition could be omitted, since it neither has an impact in the interpretation of the results, nor is safety an endpoint in the participating studies (only the “correct” performance of the procedure). Alternatively, the authors could state that the procedural skills relate to the parameters examined by each author in his/her field of expertise.

(Line 68-69) Sentence is missing the verb

Line 184:  Hedges’ g is by most authors capital

In the discussion there should be a comment on the increased effect of Peyton’s approach in the retention testing (vs post-acquisition testing), mainly in the time-needed-for-procedure variable. The possible long-term comprehension advantage of deconstructive teaching has been previously discussed (see references).


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PEYTON’S 4-STEP TEACHING APPROACH ON SKILL ACQUISITION OF PROCEDURES IN HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS WITH INTEGRATED META-REGRESSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written and is a pleasant read. However, as I have stated in my comments to the author, the manuscript will have a greater outreach if it is published in a medical education journal. These include:
Academic Medicine
BMC Medical Education (Open access)
Medical Teacher etc.
Experimental design: The authors have described the design suitably.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript adds to the corpus of literature with regards to instructional design strategies employed in the delivery of the curriculum in Undergraduate and Graduate medical education.
Additional comments: This is a very well designed and well written manuscript, which was indeed a pleasant read. The article is an important addition to the corpus of literature on instructional design strategy. I do not have any major concerns to state.
The following are some aspects, which I believe will further strengthen the study, which are in fact minor edits to be included. Further to the above, I also believe that this article will be more suitable for publication in a health professions education journal such as Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Teacher etc. However, this is a minor point for the authors to consider.

1. The authors have rightly discussed the advantages of adopting Peyton’s 4-step approach over traditional pedagogical strategy in the dissemination of complex procedural skills in medical education. However, it would add to the manuscript if they can also touch upon George and Doto's 5-step approach.

2. Yes, the third step of Peyton is the crucial step, but so is the fourth, as in this step (Elicit performance), the instructor provides feedback to the learner. In fact, a systematic review by Issenberg et al  a key component of clinical skill teaching and learning are the opportunity for feedback while practicing the skill (the authors are requested to refer to Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review, Medical Teacher, 27 (1) (2005), pp. 10 -28 f0r details). Additionally, this step of Peyton’s pedagogical strategy is also supported by Bandura’s scaffolding theory (refer to Learning theories by DH Schunk)  . The above aspects should be included in the section of the introduction where the authors have elaborated on the individual steps.

3. One of the strengths of Peyton instructional design strategy is that it can be effectively combined with other instructional design strategies, which allows the simultaneous delivery of theoretical concepts along with complex procedural skills. In fact, this reviewer hasn’t come across any other pedagogical strategy except Peyton, which has been effectively employed in the design of a blended pedagogical approach. This aspect should be included in the introduction which will strengthen the rationale of the study. (The authors can refer to the following articles: Blending Gagne's Instructional Model with Peyton's Approach to Design an Introductory Bioinformatics Lesson Plan for Medical Students: Proof-of-Concept Study. JMIR Med Educ. 2018;4(2):e11122.; Combining Peyton's four-step approach and Gagne's instructional model in teaching slit-lamp examination.” Perspectives on medical education vol. 3,6 (2014): 480-5.)

Other sections of the manuscript are well written and I have nothing significant to add to them


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PEYTON’S 4-STEP TEACHING APPROACH ON SKILL ACQUISITION OF PROCEDURES IN HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS WITH INTEGRATED META-REGRESSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Dear Authors
Thanks a lot for the opportunity you have offered me to revise this interesting systematic review with meta-analysis.
Globally, the manuscript is well conducted and the reporting adheres to the PRISMA guideline. There are only minor revisions that need to be addressed before the acceptance.
I wait your revised version of the manuscript.
Thanks a lot for your effort in preparing this interesting paper.
Best regards.

Material and methods:
-Searches: please could you report who performed the search phase? Moreover, could you explode the acronym ERIC as “Education Resources Information Center”
-line 130: please consider to change “was build” in “was prepared”.
-Study selection, data extractions, risk of bias assessment: please could you report how you have measure the disagreement among authors, thus including a statistical measure (e.g., k, ICC? With 95%IC)

Risk of bias:
-line 362-363: I have checked the original paper of Rossettini et al. The authors declared in the abstract: “Participants, teachers and assessors were blinded to the aims of the study”. Moreover, they claim in the material and methods “Teachers were blinded to the study outcomes”, “Each teacher was trained in only one method in order to prevent contamination during the sessions”, and “Both teachers received a detailed sheet regarding students’ learning goals, the duration of the session and the steps required by the approach“. Accordingly, please modify your sentence aimed to be adherent with the original manuscript.

Discussion
-line 455: please could you explode the acronym “ACGME”?

Implications for research:
-I suggest authors to add also another implication regard learning (as suggested by Wulf’s research group). We consider an “acquisition phase” when we acquire a motor skill at short term; while a “retention” when there is a follow up and a “transfer phase” when we translate the learning in other ecological settings. Accordingly, future studies should investigate a stabilized learning of motor skills with long-term follow up (during retention phase). Moreover, there is a need to  consider also the assessment of the motor skill acquired in ecological settings (e.g., during internship) suggesting an adequate transfer phase.

Conclusion:
The findings of this study are really relevant for educators. I suggest authors also to include other possible implications for inter professional education. Accordingly, how educators involved in different healthcare fields (e.g., nursing, medicine, physiotherapy, speech therapy) can implement your findings in their educational practice?

Appendix 1:
I thank you for providing the Appendix 1, however please add also the search strategies for all the databases. This strategy will improve the overall transparency of the manuscript.

References.
In the introduction section please include these fundamental references when you introduce the Peyton’s four approach.
* American College of Surgeons. Advanced Trauma Life Support for Doctors, 6th edn. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons 1997.
* George JH, Doto FX. A simple five-step method for teaching clinical skills. Fam Med 2001;33 (8):577–8.


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PEYTON’S 4-STEP TEACHING APPROACH ON SKILL ACQUISITION OF PROCEDURES IN HEALTH PROFESSIONS EDUCATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS WITH INTEGRATED META-REGRESSION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please revise some typo
sometimes you use e.g., other times i.e.,
line 64 psychmotor
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Dear Authors
congratulations for your hard work.
I suggest the editor to accept the paper.
I'm waiting to read the published paper.
Best regards.


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

Input:
Title: THE PHYLOGENETICS OF TELEOSAUROIDEA (CROCODYLOMORPHA, THALATTOSUCHIA) AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THEIR ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Good. See below (general comments for the authors) for more.
Experimental design: Good. See below (general comments for the authors) for more.
Validity of the findings: Good. See below (general comments for the authors) for more.
Additional comments: This looks like a very thorough study, but I should stress that I am not an archosaur specialist. Thus, I have focused on two field for which I have fairly sharp expertise, namely phylogenetics and nomenclature. In general, I like the draft, but I see two problems with the phylogenetic analysis, one that can very easily be fixed, and another one that would be harder to fix, so I don’t think that the authors should be obliged to follow my advice, but I offer both for them to consider. Then, follow more minor, punctual comments.

First, the easy part. The authors have ordered some characters (which is good), but their criteria for doing so are not clear, and obviously, they have omitted to order some characters that should really be ordered. The criterion is simple (but has rarely been simply explained): any character that varies continuously (i.e. forms a cline) should be ordered because in fact, the assumptions that allow to discretize continuous variation into states is exactly the same that stipulates that such states should be ordered. For more details about this and simulations that show what is gained by ordering such characters, see Grand et al. (2013), Rineau et al. (2015, 2018) and Wiens (2001: 693-694). Such characters include all inherently continuous quantitative characters (size, shape, ratios) that have been discretized. These are very common in systematics. Character 5 “Skull width to length ratio” is such a character. The authors should revise and clarify their approach (explain why this was done) starting on lines 317-318, where they list the characters that were ordered. Obviously, more characters need ordering, like new character 294, characters 17, 49, 58, 59, 79, 85, 88, 89, 410, and probably characters 54, 55, 78 (this appears to be a gradient in lachrymal length) and 151, among others (I checke till character 100; after that, I checked just a few, so this list is probably far from exhaustive). Clarifying the rationale for ordering here is important because this is obviously not clear to most systematists (my conversations with several of them shows this clearly). Also note that such ordering also matters in Bayesian analyses, so the latter should also be redone. You did not specify if your Bayesian analyses used the same ordering scheme as your parsimony analyses, but that should be the case. Also, please note that there is a strong caveat to doing Bayesian analyses of morphological data; about this, see Goloboff et al. (2019). I am not saying that you should not do such Bayesian analyses, but this caveat should be discussed briefly.

Second, the harder (optional) part. Some characters are obviously composites of two or more features that have been lumped into a single shape character. Number 2, “Skull geometry, relative position of tooth row, quadrate articular facet and occipital condyle », is such a character. This character is problematic because it mixes the position of three structures (tooth row, quadrate condyle and occipital condyle), which are apparently aligned with respect to a fourth, unidentified structure. As a result, the position of each of these structures, which must vary continuously, cannot be ordered in a meaningful way. I would split this into at least two ordered, multi-state characters. One possibility would be to select an axis aligned on the premaxilla tip and the occipital condyle as a standard reference (though the authors should feel free to choose any pair of homologous points they see fit for this), and determine the position of the other structures (in this case, quadrate and mid-point or caudal end of the tooth row) relative to this axis. This would then allow at least three states to be defined (above, aligned with, or below the axis). Of course, “aligned with”, in all cases, is approximative, so a tolerance threshold should be set (for instance, add or take 1, 2 or 5% of the total cranial length). And such characters could and should be ordered because this represents discretization of continuous variation, a cline. Implementing this for all characters where this might seem warranted on a matrix of this size would be very time-consuming, so I think that this should be optional. But I suggest that the authors try this approach for at least one of their characters (number 2 seems like a good one) and see how it works for them. That way, in their future studies, they can do better.

I have a few more punctual comments, organized by line number of the MS-Word file (I never could download the pdf file):

26, 36 (and possibly elsewhere): « modern » is a very subjective concept ; for some paleontologists, anything after the Proterozoic is modern. For others, it is from the 1990s on… Use more objective terms, like “extant”, “crown”, or name the taxon. Otherwise, only a few specialists may (perhaps) really understand what you mean.

45, 46, 47 (and possibly elsewhere): “genus”, like all Linnaean categories, is an artificial construct. You might want to minimize use of these and use the convenient words “taxon”, “clade”, etc. If you are not familiar with this issue, see, among others, Ereshefsky (2002) and Laurin (2008, 2010).

93-94: “Other taxa were considered insufficient to include in the dataset,…” Unclear.

97-98: “there were no ordered or weighted characters, and multi-state characters were treated as polymorphs (Mueller-Töwe, 2006).” You need to give some background why this is problematic (in your opinion because not weighting is the most common practice). For ordering, Rineau et al. (2015, 2018) are possibilities. For weighting, possibly Goloboff’s papers on implied weights, which you cited elsewhere in the draft.

114-115, 141-142: “The strict consensus (Fig. 1B) produced 67 MPTs and 1462 steps (CI = 0.28; RI = 0.66).” No. the consensus was produced from 67 MPTs. A consensus is a single topology that is typically not fully resolved. And I hope that the reported statistics refer to the MPTs, not to the consensus, which is always longer.

126-127, 129, 186: “the Chinese teleosaurid (IVPP V 10098) was treated as the metriorhynchoid Peipehsuchus”. Do you mean “attributed to”? Please be precise.

370-372: “Bremer support values of 10 were also calculated which measure branch support and indicate the number of extra steps required for a clade to collapse (Müller, 2004)” Unclear. Bremer values of up to 10 were computed? And note that Bremer invented that index, not Müller. So, in addition to citing Müller’s paper for the technique, it would be good to cite Bremer (1988).

405: The identity of a type-species should not result from a choice; it must be the oldest species that belonged to that species, according to the rules of the zoological code. Is this what Johnson, Young & Brusatte (in press) did ?

415-416: “we believe that it is necessary to state new proposed teleosauroid genera first” In fact, new genera are not stated, they are erected. Please be precise. Biological nomenclature is a highly technical field and the proper vocabulary must be used.

2153-2154: Some character descriptions are not ideal. Take, for instance, this one: “13. Ornamentation present on lacrimal in dorsal view: yes (0), with shallow to deep pits and/or grooves, or no (1) (Fig. 29).” What if you find a taxon with ornamentation that does not consist of pits or grooves (with ridges or pustules, for instance)? Or if it has pits and-or ridges, but if these are visible only in lateral view (if the lacrimal is vertical, for instance). Thus, you might want to simply have present/absent, but in the description that follows, you could indicate that in the taxa that are scored 0 (present), ornamentation consists of pits and/or grooves. You may even suggest, if another type of ornamentation is encountered (like ridges or pustules), whether or not it should be distinguished as a separate state. But ideally, the set of states that you recognize should cover all possible cases (with some inapplicable scores required, for some situations).

2160-2160: For this character “15. Frontal, extension of ornamentation: extends from the centre of the frontal to lateral- and anterior-most regions (0) or restricted to centre of the frontal (1) (Fig. 29).” What if there is no ornamentation? Will you score this as inapplicable? This might reduce information, unless you have a presence/absence in another character. Alternatively, a third state (2) “absent” should be recognized (and then, this would have to be ordered because there is a gradient from well-developed to absent).

Here a little digression. I notice that you have several ornanamentation characters. Just in case that you did not see this I mention that de Buffrénil has recently published several papers on this, notably one (Buffrénil et al., 2015) that focuses on development, and another one (Clarac et al., 2017) on phylogenetic patterns and possible correlates, in both cases in archosaurs. You might want to look at these (if you have not done so, already) to better understand how ornamentation develops and its significance. But don’t feel obliged to cite these papers in this draft. However, note that to understand what determines variation captures in your character 14 (and probably some other ornamentation characters), Buffrénil et al. (2015) might be relevant.

3127-3129: A better formulation should be found for the states of character 102 “Supratemporal fenestrae, shape is either longitudinal ellipsoid or subrectangular (0), square-shaped (1), transverse (= extended) triangle (2), circular (3), triangle-shaped (4), or parallelogram (5) (Fig. 55).” Indeed, sate 2 seems to belong to state 4 because both are triangles, and states 0 and 1 seem to belong to state 5 because squares are rectangles, and rectangles are parallelograms (from most specific to most general polygon categories). But surely, this hierarchy is not intended.

3782-3783: Italicize Charitomenosuchus, Seldsienean, Deslongchampsina and Machimosaurinae.

4234: What are “semi-marine environments” ? Deltas ? Estuaries ? Mangroves ? Or more generally, any coastal environments?

4295: “on land”, not “onland”.

4301: Note that semi-marine is not the same as amphibious; semi-aquatic is.

This is not an anonymous review; the authors should feel free to contact me if they have questions.

Best wishes,

Michel Laurin
michel.laurin@mnhn.fr

References

Bremer K. 1988. The limits of amino acid sequence data in angiosperm phylogenetic reconstruction. Evolution 42:795-803.
Buffrénil V de, Clarac F, Fau M, Martin S, Martin B, Pellé E, and Laurin M. 2015. Differentiation and growth of bone ornamentation in vertebrates: a comparative histological study among the Crocodylomorpha. J Morph 276:425–445. 10.1002/jmor.20351
Clarac F, De Buffrénil V, Brochu C, and Cubo J. 2017. The evolution of bone ornamentation in Pseudosuchia: morphological constraints versus ecological adaptation. Biol J Linn Soc 121:395–408.
Ereshefsky M. 2002. Linnaean ranks: Vestiges of a bygone era. Phil Sci 69:S305–S315.
Grand A, Corvez A, Duque Velez LM, and Laurin M. 2013. Phylogenetic inference using discrete characters: performance of ordered and unordered parsimony and of three-item statements. Biol J Linn Soc 110:914–930.
Goloboff PA, Pittman M, Pol D, and Xu X. 2019. Morphological data sets fit a common mechanism much more poorly than DNA sequences and call into question the Mkv model. Syst Biol 68:494–504. 10.1093/sysbio/syy077
Laurin M. 2008. The splendid isolation of biological nomenclature. Zoologica Scr 37:223–233. 10.1111/j.1463-6409.2007.00318.x
Laurin M. 2010. The subjective nature of Linnaean categories and its impact in evolutionary biology and biodiversity studies. Contributions to Zoology 79:131–146.
Rineau V, Grand A, Zaragüeta R, and Laurin M. 2015. Experimental systematics: sensitivity of cladistic methods to polarization and character ordering schemes. Contributions to Zoology 84:129-148.
Rineau V, Zaragüeta I Bagils R, and Laurin M. 2018. Impact of errors on cladistic inference: simulation-based comparison between parsimony and three-taxon analysis. Contributions to Zoology 87:25-40.
Wiens JJ. 2001. Character analysis in morphological phylogenetics: problems and solutions. Syst Biol 50:689–699.


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

Input:
Title: THE PHYLOGENETICS OF TELEOSAUROIDEA (CROCODYLOMORPHA, THALATTOSUCHIA) AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THEIR ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: All my comments are focused in the Discussion section, especially on paleoecologic and biogeographic implications.

Line 4362- Ecomorphological diversity
According to the text, teleosauroids can be classified in different ecomorphotyps, but I think that criteria are a bit mixed.
Only one criterion is common and applied to all taxa, which is that concerning the general skull shape (longirostrine, mesorostrine, brevirostrine). But then, depending on specie they are classified according its main dietary adaptations (piscivorous/specialist, generalist, macrophagous/durophagous); while other are classified according to adaptations to particular environment  (semi-terrestrial or semi-pelagic).
Consequently, that makes the results a bit confusing for a non-expert reader (like me). For example, in both text and Fig. 63 Platysuchus, Teleosaurus and Mycterosuchus are identified as belonging to the longirostrine semi-terrestrial guild, but were they generalist? Durophagous?
The same question arise for Aeolodon + Sericodon + Bathysuchus, which are identified as longirostrine pelagic, but is unclear if they were generalist consumers, or specialized piscivorous or macrophagous/durophagous.

Figure 63 does not help to solve these doubts and neither reflects the ecomorphological diversity of the group. Thus, I suggest changing this figure (please, see my proposal below).

Line 4387 to 4434
Authors describe the occurrence of the different ecomorphologic guilds co-existing in the same time period, and even provide evidence about the appearance/disappearance of certain ecomorphotips along time. But in a more macro-evolutionary viewpoint, it remains unclear if the ecomorphologic diversity of teleosauroids changed or remained stable along 70 Ma. In other words, was the number of guilds constant though time?
Could that ecomorphologic diversity reflect any specific niche partitioning strategy among teleosauroids that live at the same time?

In this regard, it would be useful if authors could provide a time-calibrate phylogeny showing the time distribution of each guild. (please, see my proposal below).

Line 4467 - Biogeographical distribution
I have my concerns about the porpoise of this section. It seems that it is focused on describing the current geographic distribution of the fossil remains rather than paleobiogeographic distribution of teleosauroids during the Jurassic. The alleged global distribution of the clade seems inconsistent when data is included in a global paleogeographic context (see attached figure below ,modified from https://www.paleobiodb.org/navigator/).

Despite of the results might be influenced by sampling, outcrop availability or other biases; a particular patter can be observed. As I said, I am not an expert in teleosaurids, but it looks like that teleosaurid tend to concentrate around the Jurassic tropic belts. This biogeographic distribution is even more noticeable when implementing paleo-climate data (Rees et al., 2000).
Rees PM, Ziegler AM, Valdes PJ (2000) Jurassic phytogeography andclimates: new data and model comparisons. In: Huber BT,Macleod KG, Wing SL (eds) Warm climates in earth history.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 297–318
Additionally, it seems that they primarily diversified and dispersed around the Tethys Sea.
Consequently, if authors want to keep this section in their study, I suggest changing the direction of the paleobiogeographic section. I also recommend changing current Fig. 64 for a paleogeographic map (midd-late Jurassic) showing the biogeographic distribution of teleosauroids.

Line 4585 - Palaeoenvironment
To me, this section is confusing because I cannot see the main goal of the author in this part. Do they want to prove evidence of “convergent evolution” among certain teleosauroids and extant crocs?
Most of the text seems to be focused in justifying the occurrences of teleosaurids in fresh-water deposits, especially Indosinosuchus and the Chinese teleosauroid.
However, I my opinion the results fall in the speculative spectrum rather than prove strong evidence of adaptations to certain environments.
Consequently, I suggest removing this part from the manuscript.

Line 4651 - Teleosauroid histology
This is a short section that can be described as a review about teleosauroid histology. Given that authors do not provide any new data, and that the results of this discussion seems to be disconnects from the rest of the study (which main goal is the systematic phylogenetic review of the group), I suggest to remove this part from the manuscript.

Finally, I have additional comments:
Line 35- add comma after Buffetaut and Hua

Line 271- review the forma of reference, they should go without parenthesis.

Line 341 and 342- review the forma of reference, they should go without parenthesis.

Line 1033- ilial or iliac process?

Line 1265- Something is missing after Indosinosuchus kalasinensis, the name of the author? sp. nov.?

Line 1328-add Jäger between Macrospondylus and 1832

Line 1337- delete "s" from Figs.

Line 1473- Autopomorphic features of Se. megistorhynchus are observed in lateral view. However, in Fig. 15 the specimen is displayed in dorsal view. It would be appreciate if authors could include a picture in lateral view showing the diagnostic feature.

Line 1565- "nasutus" in italic

Line 1792- delete "s" from Figs.

Line 2004- delete "s" from Figs.

Fig. 19 seems a bit unfocussed, can it be changed?


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

Input:
Title: THE PHYLOGENETICS OF TELEOSAUROIDEA (CROCODYLOMORPHA, THALATTOSUCHIA) AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THEIR ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Note: all line numbers refer to the word document originally submitted, as the review pdf is so large that my browser refuses to open it)

Page 3, line 55: something went awry with the tenses here – should this be ‘only shows superficial differences’?

Page 5, lines 98-100: are these values taken from the original thesis or did you redo the analysis yourself? The text is somewhat ambiguous (and the figure description just states ‘altered from’), it would be good to clarify. Same goes for all of the following phylogenies. If you ran the analyses as well to check the trees, consider adding support values to all of the trees.

Page 7, line 152: should be ‘Hastings’

Page 8, line 183 and following: this is more subjective and ultimately up to the authors, but the detailed comparison of the different taxonomic treatments of species and characters between Wilberg & Martin might be better suited to the supplementary material, as it adds unnecessary detail to an already quite long manuscript, especially as none of the other previously mentioned phylogenies have received this level of detailed comparison. Otherwise it could also be deleted or be described more concisely.

Page 11, lines 256-259: The first sentence isn’t really needed, especially as you just stated this only a few paragraphs before. Can be deleted in my opinion and the section just started with ‘The taxonomic sample…’.

Page 12, line 267 and following: once again, this is to a certain extent up to the authors, but I feel like the full species list (especially those species names already known and used previously) and the specific character changes are something that is better situated in the Supplementary than in the main text, as it only distracts from the main points of the paper.

Page 13, line 304: “which has been substantially updated over time” – you mentioned this just one page ago, can be deleted.

Page 14, line 327 and following: everything from here to line 352 can be placed in the Supplementary, especially since the text contains references to the Supplementary already that appear slightly lost on their own without the context (e.g. the newly added characters, ordered characters).

Page 23, line 525: should be ‘is very wide’ or ‘anterior regions’. Also consider quantifying the width with an actual value, e.g. in respect to total skull table width.

Page 52, line 1177: there is one ‘total’ too many in here somewhere

Page 92, line 2076 onwards: perhaps somewhat controversially, I would suggest the entire Character Description section or at least a good part of it (at least in this amount of detail) could well be moved to the Supplementary, and perhaps a shorter description of the new characters be retained. Especially how each taxon is scored is already visible from the provided table in the supplementary, and any peculiarities in scoring for particular taxa can be explained in the supplementary material. The manuscript is 250 pages; I think losing these 60 pages will ultimately be beneficial to the manuscript, especially given that the information and all the hard and impressive work that went into it wouldn’t be lost, but still available to read for those who need it. Smaller paragraphs, such as the differences in ornamentation between species pointing towards more pelagic life histories can be retained and moved to other parts of the manuscript.
In addition, I think the character numbers can also well be integrated into the previous section of systematic palaeontology; instead of just naming autapomorphies and emended diagnoses, the described features can well be supplemented with character numbers.

Alternatively, if these suggestions are utterly unwelcome, the section can still be shortened by grouping the characters together into broader morphological areas (e.g. premaxilla/anterior snout, dentition, etc), where several characters can be talked about at the same time in a description of how certain morphological areas change between different members of Teleosauroidea. This way, the life history/behviour/ecology implications of these changes can be retained for the main manuscript, whilst the detailed scores for single taxa can go into the supplementary.

Page 106, line 2384: ‘forms’ should be singular

Page 153/Results section in general: since you have such a rich and impressive dataset, it would be great if the full tree you obtained would be visible somewhere, for example in the Supplementary.

Page 167, line 3826: ‘support’ instead of ‘supports’

Page 170, line 3902 and following: I feel like the entire ‘excluded taxa’ section would be better situated in the Methods section, when describing the dataset.

Page 178, line 4083/Figure 63: Figure 63 would benefit from a legend for what the different colours mean directly in the figure, not just in the image description. This could also be combined with a silhouette of the snout shapes in question in dorsal view to really illustrate the point. Same goes for Figure 65.

Page 187, line 4295: space missing in ‘onland’.

Page 190, lines 4369 to 4370: one ‘were’ too many – delete the second one.
Experimental design: Page 16, line 374: I would caution against the use of implied weighting only. It has been pointed out in the past that implied weighting can lead to artificially inflated character weights due to missing values, which is of particular concern when using it on a fossil dataset (Goloboff, 2014). I would suggest using extended implied weighting instead, which was specifically developed by Goloboff to counteract that issue. (I also see below on Page 155 that you are citing the Goloboff 2014 paper – did you perchance use extended implied weighting already? If so, correct throughout the paper)

Page 20, line 452: as has been done for most features described here, a concrete number should be given for the length of the external vs the internal antorbital fenestra, rather than just stating ‘significantly’, as this is quite subjective. This goes for several other places in the manuscript, too, including:
-	Page 23, line 528, numbers instead of ‘significant’
-	Page 36, line 815, numbers instead of ‘relatively reduced’
-	Page 56, line 1264, can you quantify ‘slightly elongated’? (as opposed to ‘strongly elongated’)
-	Page 67, line 1502, can you quantify ‘premaxillae dorsoventrally high’ with actual ratios somehow?
-	Page 79, line 1780, numbers instead of ‘small’, if possible
-	Page 80, line 1782, numbers instead of ‘reduced’, if possible

Page 157, line 3607: from which set of trees did you produce the agreement subtree? Only the weighted analysis or all analyses? Add the answer.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: First of all, I would like to congratulate the authors on a monumental piece of work that speaks of an enormous effort from all the parties involved and provides a major step forward in teleosauroid taxonomy. I'm sure this work will provide the foundation for even more exciting things to come and be cited wildly.

The vast majority of my comments are minor and mostly cosmetic in nature, with only two major things (elaborated upon in the specific sections above):

1) Implied Weighting is not the appropriate method for data analysis in this case. You should use Extended Implied Weighting instead, which is the improved version of Implied Weighting. Using implied weights only introduces bias against characters with too many missing scores, which is undesirable in a palaeontology dataset. Hopefully the results shouldn't be too different.

2) Some of the sections (in particular the detailed character discussion) can be shortened/integrated with previous sections and/or moved entirely to the Supplementary in my opinion, to created a 'punchier' paper.