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: EXPANDING WALLS AND SHRINKING BEACHES: LOSS OF NATURAL COASTLINE IN OKINAWA ISLAND, JAPAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.

Self-contained with relevant results.
Experimental design: Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.

Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound.
Additional comments: The MS of Masuccin and Reimer quantify the extension of the coast alteration in Okinawa island, considering an spatial analysis based on maps, of man made structures constructed from 51 years ago. The analyses performed showed important artificialization of the coast , with only few remant "patches" of natural habitats remaining. I found the  study is very useful and well executed, and help to provide important mitigation measures to restore/manage coastal habitats of this and other scenarios.

I have no general concerns about this study, bu likely condensing results (L: 245-271)  in an additional summary table (reporting natural/artificial tracts) would be easy to follow for readers.


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: EXPANDING WALLS AND SHRINKING BEACHES: LOSS OF NATURAL COASTLINE IN OKINAWA ISLAND, JAPAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English is not quite right in multiple places (including some imprecise words such as “vast” and “severity”, unnecessary pluralisation, e.g. “extents”, “infrastructures”) and would benefit from some additional proofreading. Tables and Figures are appropriate (but insert compass roses, and keep format the same among the maps, e.g. scale bars).
Experimental design: The authors highlight that “it is not possible to state the length of a coastline without referring to a specific reference map or to a scale and accuracy of unit of measurement” which is true, but then do not clearly provide this information. We need to know how long the measuring stick is – does OSM provide this? Is it always the same (across countries)? Although OSM seems good for current and future studies, can it be applied to old maps? If not, would it not be better to manually digitise coastlines from old and contemporary maps, do the necessary georeferencing, and then measure distance and areas using exactly the same technique (whatever that may be) on each map?
Validity of the findings: The findings appear to be ok.
Additional comments: Suggest change title to “Expanding walls and shrinking beaches:…”

Line 53. Suggest remove “entire”

Line 61. Not sure soil and concrete are used very much in reclamation, or at least for the actual infill (sand and rock maybe).

Line 63. I thought “land-filling” was burying garbage in big holes? I realise that “land reclamation” as a term has issues, but at least everybody knows what it means… Even if “land-filling” did not describe rubbish dumps, it still wouldn’t be a great descriptor for creating land from the sea (perhaps “sea-filling”?)!

Line 70. I am not sure “nutrients, sedimentation rates, and turbidity” can be degraded.

Line 140. Suggest delete this first sentence.

Line 148. Great that Mandelbrot it cited!

Line 152. Suggest change “are pointless” to “are of little use”

Line 273. Suggest say “over 63%” instead of “considerable part of”

Lines 276-281. This should probably be in the Methods.

Line 286-7. 2x “unique”

Line 310. Perhaps rephrase “extreme proximity to the ocean”

Line 329. Suggest delete “obviously”

Line 340. “Future research should examine how coastal armoring affects the uniqueness of coastal ecosystems.” – I am not sure what this means.

Line 366. Perhaps rephrase  “from a coastline-focused point of view”

Line 372. “where the natural coastline has been completely obliterated” is not really the case. Suggest change to “where less than 20% of its natural coastline remains”

375. Perhaps change “like” to “such as”?

378-9. Not sure “easily” or “easy” are quite the right terms. These are big jobs.

385-5. Suggest change “It is our hope that this work will provide a baseline to focus attention on the status quo of the Okinawa Island coastline…” to “It is anticipated this work will focus attention on the current status of the Okinawa Island coastline…”


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: EXPANDING WALLS AND SHRINKING BEACHES: LOSS OF NATURAL COASTLINE IN OKINAWA ISLAND, JAPAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a very good, innovative work.  It is a good basis for knowing the current status of the Okinawa Island coast line. I found this could be used for conservation. Also it is a useful information for Okinawan people to think about land use.
  Ministry of Environment Japan did their last coastal area survey in 1998 and  Okinawa prefecture did similar survey for Okinawan islands from 2009 to 2012, which are quite a while ago.
  In both cases the cost of survey had been a problem, but by applying this paper’s way you don’t have to the actual coastal areas and you could obtain data.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: 1)Line 73 to 90
The author writes about EIA. The author thinks that 'the size of coastal development matters to EIA' . The size of the development is very important factor however it is not only the fact whether to decide EIA should be applied or not. EIA covers only limited laws. Coast Act ('Kaiganhou' in Japanese) is not included in them. Therefore regardless of the size developments for hard armoring could proceed without EIA.

Reference (in Japanese)
https://www.erc-net.com/kankyo/asesu.html#a

'Kouyu suimen umetatehou'(law for landfill in public waters) is included in EIA, so we need EIA for landfills.

2)Line 94 ,95
After EIA process, 'Kouyu suimen umetatehou'(law for landfill in public waters) is applied for landfills. Then about this prefectural governor has power. This is one of the reasons why the governor plays so important for Okinawa.

3) Line 121
  The size of US military base at Cape Henoko/Oura Bay has changed from the paper which the author sited. The size of the latest plan for US military base is 160ha.

Reference:
The summary of EIA for Futenma relocation plan
https://www.mod.go.jp/rdb/okinawa/07oshirase/chotatsu/hyoukayouyaku/hyoukayouyaku.html
Additional comments: Orange is applied for Soft armoring and Red is applied for Hard armoring. However these colors are very similar when these two are in one figure. This is a very important thing so I suggest the author to change the color.


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: EXPANDING WALLS AND SHRINKING BEACHES: LOSS OF NATURAL COASTLINE IN OKINAWA ISLAND, JAPAN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Good
Experimental design: Good
Validity of the findings: Good
Additional comments: The revised version looks fine.


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: CRUCIAL LNCRNAS ASSOCIATED WITH ADIPOCYTE DIFFERENTIATION FROM HUMAN ADIPOSE-DERIVED STEM CELLS BASED ON CO-EXPRESSION AND CERNA NETWORK ANALYSES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: Experimental design is well designed .
Validity of the findings: The finding is novel.
Additional comments: Thank you for kindly give me the chance to reviewer this manuscript. I have carefully read and review the manuscript" Crucial lncRNAs associated with adipocyte differentiation from human adipose-derived stem cells based on co-expression and ceRNA network analyses" The manuscript described a study which tried to screen crucial lncRNAs associated with adipogenic differentiation of HASCs based on the coexpression and ceRNA mechanisms. Overall, the analysis workflow is correct and the manuscript is well written. We only suggested to giving minor modification to consider to accept this paper.
line 168: which contained 440 positive connections (Figure 2; (Supplemental Information 3). Please delete the Repeated parenthesis.
Line 177: which was used for constructing the ceRNA network. Were not was ?
Line 209: ESR1(downregulated). Furthermore…a space should be deleted before Furthermore.
There were two panels for figure 2,3, please use A and B to display 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: CRUCIAL LNCRNAS ASSOCIATED WITH ADIPOCYTE DIFFERENTIATION FROM HUMAN ADIPOSE-DERIVED STEM CELLS BASED ON CO-EXPRESSION AND CERNA NETWORK ANALYSES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: The authors used microarray data. In addition to these data, if the authors include RNA-seq data in their analysis, the biological finding present in this paper will be more reliable. Are there any RNA-seq data which can be utilized in the authors' studies?
Validity of the findings: The reliability of the authors' finding is questionable because the authors' analyses include the following two drawbacks.
(1) The authors used p-value for selecting differentially expressed genes/lncRNAs/miRNAs; However, they should use adjusted p-values reported in e.g., Supplementary Table S2. Additionally, the authors should provide adjusted p-values for lncRNA and miRNA (Table 1 includes only partial information).
(2) It is well known that miRNA target predictions lead to many false positives. Another criticism of this study is to depend greatly on the predictions. I suggest the authors use other resources for ceRNAs (e.g., [http://starbase.sysu.edu.cn/fstarbase2/mrnaCeRNA.php](http://starbase.sysu.edu.cn/fstarbase2/mrnaCeRNA.php) ) in their analyses.
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: CRUCIAL LNCRNAS ASSOCIATED WITH ADIPOCYTE DIFFERENTIATION FROM HUMAN ADIPOSE-DERIVED STEM CELLS BASED ON CO-EXPRESSION AND CERNA NETWORK ANALYSES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments. The manuscript is well written. Literature references are sufficient and relevant to the hypothesis.
Experimental design: One major comment is related to the choose of the reference data. Why were this two assays selected? This should be explained in the manuscript, mainly considering that expression data came from different strategies (microarray and RNA-Seq).
Validity of the findings: Though analysis of data is well done and results may be interesting the overall manuscript seems to contain preliminary data. The major findings reported appear as highly speculative and must be confirmed experimentally.
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: CRUCIAL LNCRNAS ASSOCIATED WITH ADIPOCYTE DIFFERENTIATION FROM HUMAN ADIPOSE-DERIVED STEM CELLS BASED ON CO-EXPRESSION AND CERNA NETWORK ANALYSES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no 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: CRUCIAL LNCRNAS ASSOCIATED WITH ADIPOCYTE DIFFERENTIATION FROM HUMAN ADIPOSE-DERIVED STEM CELLS BASED ON CO-EXPRESSION AND CERNA NETWORK ANALYSES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors addressed most of my concerns.


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: CRUCIAL LNCRNAS ASSOCIATED WITH ADIPOCYTE DIFFERENTIATION FROM HUMAN ADIPOSE-DERIVED STEM CELLS BASED ON CO-EXPRESSION AND CERNA NETWORK ANALYSES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: The authors have answered the major comments about the experimental design.
Validity of the findings: Results are highly speculative, the authors have stated this in the manuscript
Additional comments: The author have answered all major comments. Though still have doubts about how meaningful are these results, the manuscript can be published in 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: DESIGN, SYNTHESIS AND ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITIES OF NOVEL 1,3,5-THIADIAZINE-2-THIONE DERIVATIVES CONTAINING A 1,3,4-THIADIAZOLE GROUP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There are a couple of misspelling in the manuscript, I corrected them and highlighted in the attached file.
References should be arranged in alphabetical order.
I believe there is a small mistake in stoichiometric calculation in experimental section
The new compounds are well characterized, however I missed a little  more information or discusion about their synthesis.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The manuscript described a very interesting and well succeed hypothesis of mix two different classes of compound, with different biological activities in only one molecule to improve those biological activities, being possible to use a single compound for different application.
Nice work


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: DESIGN, SYNTHESIS AND ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITIES OF NOVEL 1,3,5-THIADIAZINE-2-THIONE DERIVATIVES CONTAINING A 1,3,4-THIADIAZOLE GROUP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript describes the design, the synthesis and the bioassay results of 1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione derivatives. The products synthesized demonstrated promise possibilities on the agrochemical field. However, an overview of the paper exhibits an insufficient discussion of the results, and an unclear findings about the improvements obtained in this paper compared with the literature.
Experimental design: The manuscript demonstrates a great number of results, and all compounds were proper characterized.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript demonstrates a poor discussion about the optimization of the synthetic procedures, other synthetic route available and yields variation. About the biological studies, they were conducted by structure modifications in a concise way, but without a deep and clear discussion.
Additional comments: So, I have added some comments that could improve the quality of the manuscript.

1-	Materials – In this section, more information about the equipment and analysis should be provided: Model and probe of NMR; charge source and operating HRMS; and visualization procedures for TLC.
2-	Line 181, putting data instead of date;
3-	The Table 1 is presented in the Results and Discussion, but any discussion and/or arguments are described on the main text. Thus, I recommend putting the Table 1 in the support information. Additionally, I recommend using the standard models (organic synthesis) to describe all characterization data;
4-	Small comments are described about the Table 2. Additionally, the points evaluated on the comments are not necessary because they are consolidated subjects on the base literature. I strongly recommend putting the Table 2 in the support information or inside of the protocols section, as described above, and a full discussion about synthetic route, purification and yields variation must be carried out. As the subtitle “Design and Synthesis”, a discussion about others synthetic protocols must be related;
5-	I recommend putting the Table 5 in the support information. This discussion about the crystallographic data should be carried out before the biological evaluation and together with spectroscopy and spectrometry comments;
6-	A figure with all structures evaluated on the biological assays should be added in the main text, before biological studies, for a clear understanding of the results;
7-	The antibacterial effects of title compounds against Xoo should be added in a graphical form and not written in the main text;
8-	During the biological evaluating a comparation with commercial and/or similar compounds should be carried out.


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: IDENTIFICATION OF FLAP ENDONUCLEASE 1 AS A POTENTIAL CORE GENE IN HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA BY INTEGRATED BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results
Additional comments: This manuscript “Identification of Flap endonuclease 1 as a potential core gene in hepatocellular carcinoma by integrated bioinformatics analysis” by Li et al tried to investigate the specific mechanisms involved in HCC diagnosis by integrated bioinformatics.
In this manuscript, the authors identified Nine core genes in the most critical cluster, and the PPI of the nine core genes revealed an interaction between FEN1, MCM2, RFC4, and BIRC5. Furthermore, FEN1 expression was positively correlated with that of three other core genes in TCGA liver cancer tissues. The goal of the study is clear and well stated. Background studies about the article is clearly articulated. Yet, there are still some problems as follows. I would like to suggest a major revision for it.
The detail comments as followings:

1.	Line 35, should add one blank space before 185.
2.	Line 43, the meaning of this sentence is a little confused, please make it clear.
3.	Line 59, this sentence is confusing, please revise it.
4.	Lines 74-75, the description of this sentence is not accurate, please correct it.
5.	Line 156, change CO2 to CO2.
6.	Line 172, delete the blank space after 56, including others in the whole manuscript.
7.	Lines 184-192, should provide the detail parameter for the RT-PCR analysis.
8.	Line 200, should add one blanks space before and after <.
9.	Line 204, author should use third person mood to describe the whole manuscript, please correct it, including others in the whole manuscript.
10.	Line 328, this section, authors should add several subtitles for discussion focus on the main issues.
11.	Line 433, author should unify the references style, including the journal name and others. Such as, line 487 and line 492 ect.


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: IDENTIFICATION OF FLAP ENDONUCLEASE 1 AS A POTENTIAL CORE GENE IN HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA BY INTEGRATED BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: 1. There are lots of datasets related to HCC in GEO database, please explain why the four GSE datasets were selected, especiall datasets contained small number of samples, such as GSE29721 and GSE60502. Maybe the authors should list the inclusive and exclusive criteria.
2. In the exploration of correlation between FEN1 and clinicopathological features, please add some other crucial clinicopathological factors, such as MVI, AFP level, etc. These traits are also close related to HCC prognosis.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Using bioinformatic analysis, the authors have obtained nine core genes related to HCC progression and prognosis, in addition, they made a further exploration in the effect of FEN1 dysregulation on HCC. The study was well written. Besides the comments in the 3 areas above, I have several comments:
1. Most of the nine core genes have been reported in previous studies, maybe the authors could make a comparison with the previous bioinformatic studies.
2. In the "Discussion" part, the authors should make further discussion about the potential mechanisms of correlation between FEN1 and clinicopathological features. In addition, the discussion about the potential mechanisms of FEN1 in HCC progression and prognosis is not well discussed.


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: IDENTIFICATION OF FLAP ENDONUCLEASE 1 AS A POTENTIAL CORE GENE IN HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA BY INTEGRATED BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: None.
Experimental design: None.
Validity of the findings: None.
Additional comments: Thanks for the authors' response. I have learned a lot from them, and I don not have any questions for this manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: DENDROBIUM ALKALOIDS DECREASE AΒ BY REGULATING Α- AND Β-SECRETASES IN HIPPOCAMPAL NEURONS OF SD RATS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The current study by Huang et al. reports that DNLA decreases the Aβ through regulating α- and β-secretase of hippocampal neurons of rat. Although the study does raise some potentially interesting findings there are some limitations and the manuscript must be improved in several ways. Please find some concerns below:

In introduction: It appears to be quite superficial and brief on why the authors study DNLA in this experiment (just one paragraph). Suggest the authors expand the relevant background.

In Results: The authors missed information on the statistics, for example, the dose-dependent effects in Figs 4-6, and descriptions on some special results such as the the significant effect in 0.35 group but not in other groups in Fig 5B. There are no bars in the control columns in Figs 3-6? The authors should avoid describing the results as repetition of the figure legends.

In Discussion: Give some sentences on what is the significance of this study.

The authors should give GREATER attention to English grammars and punctuations, and the reference citations.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: None.


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: DENDROBIUM ALKALOIDS DECREASE AΒ BY REGULATING Α- AND Β-SECRETASES IN HIPPOCAMPAL NEURONS OF SD RATS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors tried to demonstrate Dendrobium nobile Lindl. Alkaloids (DNLA) extracted from a Chinese medicinal herb decreased  Aβ accumulation through regulating α- and β-secretase of hippocampal neurons in SD rat. Under current situation, there still lacks robust evidence to support their hypothesis.
Experimental design: The authors observed that DNLA reduced the protein expression of amyloid precursor protein (APP), disintegrin and metalloprotease 10 (ADAM10), β-site APP cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) and Aβ1-42 of hippocampal neurons in rat, increased the protein expression of ADAM17. However, they used an in vitro model of primary cultured NORMAL neurons! And declared that  after cultured for 8-10 days in vitro,  neurons were degenerated and accumulation of Amyloid beta peptide were observed. I don not think this is the common phenotype of NORMAL primary cultured neurons under such a circumstances and this treatment is also not a valid model for studying the clearance or degradation of Aβ. Please show more evidence to support their experimental design here and make some modifications.
Validity of the findings: As I questioned above, the authors used an uncommon model to test their hypothesis. Thus, the validity of their findings is doubtful.
Additional comments: The manuscript suffers from many typos and poor grammar throughout. As they are currently written, many sentences are confusing.  The manuscript would greatly benefit from a thorough editing by a native English speaker.


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: DENDROBIUM ALKALOIDS DECREASE AΒ BY REGULATING Α- AND Β-SECRETASES IN HIPPOCAMPAL NEURONS OF SD RATS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed the issues, and improved the quality of the ms.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: It is OK now.


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: DIFFERENTIAL MECHANISMS UNDERLYING RESPONSES OF SOIL BACTERIAL AND FUNGAL COMMUNITIES TO NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS INPUTS IN A SUBTROPICAL FOREST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This MS detected the effects of N and P addition on soil microbial communities in a subtropical forest. As noted by authors, there was a wide and broad research regarding this topic in grassland ecosystems while was relative lack of research in subtropical forest. Unlike arid or semi-arid grasslands, they found that: 1) N addition decreased bacterial species richness and diversity and resulted in a substantial shift of bacterial community composition, whereas P addition did not; 2) Neither N nor P addition changed fungal species richness, diversity, and fungal community composition; and 3) the shift in bacterial community composition was attributable to an increase in soil acid cations while the shift in fungal community composition was attributable to soil nutrients. The experiment design is reasonable, statistical analysis is ok, and English write is fine. The topic seems suitable for the Journal of PeerJ. Here, I have some minor issues regarding this MS.
1.	Line 22-23. The appearance of this sentence is abrupt because you did not mention any pathways in precious sentences at all.
2.	Line 257-258. “whereas pH (17.0%), SOC (19.1%), and MBC (41.4%) collectively contributed to 65.2% of the variation”, this sentence for which parameter? Fungal diversity?
3.	Line 280. 0.05% should be 5%.
4.	One suggestion is that you should cooperate the SEM with Stepwise regression (determinations for alpha-diversity) or partial Mantel test (determinations for beta-diversity) in discussion section. Because all these methods were used to detect the determinations for diversity.


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: DIFFERENTIAL MECHANISMS UNDERLYING RESPONSES OF SOIL BACTERIAL AND FUNGAL COMMUNITIES TO NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS INPUTS IN A SUBTROPICAL FOREST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a solidly done piece of research and very novel in terms of offering new understanding of the processes involved. I am very impressed with the quality of this manuscript these are thorough analyses, thoughtful discussion points. I think this would make a very good contribution to the journal.
Experimental design: This manuscript explored the responses of soil bacterial and fungal communities and soil parameters to five-year nitrogen and phosphorus addition in a subtropical forest. The authors measured the differences in soil bacterial and fungal communities under N and/or P addition compared to control.
Validity of the findings: Some interesting results were found: (1) N and P addition both increased soil Al3+ and only N addition decreased soil pH; (2) Only N addition decreased bacterial species richness and diversity and neither N nor P addition shifted fungal species richness, diversity and community structure; and (3) SEM result showed that shift in bacterial community composition was attributable to increase in soil acid cations (Al3+) and fungal community composition was closely related with soil nutrients (SOC, TN, DOC), suggesting different ways in which N and P addition influence bacterial and fungal community.

The statistical analysis (i.e., NMDS, ANOSIM, ADONIS, MRPP and SEM) is suitable for the data and provide a sound support for the conclusion. The topic is meaningful for the region and provides some important ecological evidence on responses of bacterial and fungal communities to NP input, which will attract the readers of Peer J.
Additional comments: There are some concerns, which need to be addressed before the paper can be finally accepted for publication.
1.	L21. Change “ecosystem function” to “ecosystem functions”
2.	L35-36. Change “our results suggest that … in the subtropical forest in different ways.” To “… in different ways in subtropical forest”
3.	L58. Delete functional traits
4.	L93. Change “does not” to “did not”
5.	L303-304. There is a mistake “copiotrophic phylum (Saccharibacteria), oligotrophic phylum (Saccharibacteria)”. Chloroflex should be oligotrophic
6.	L392. Change “cause” to “induced”
7.	L395-397. This sentence “Take together….shift in bacterial and fungal community composition” could mislead the reader. Please revise it.
8.	Line 400. Delete “experiment”.
9.	Line 401. Change “decreases” to “decreased”.
10.	Captain of Fig. 6, “fungal diversity (c-d)”.


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

Input:
Title: TWO NEW SPECIES OF NOTODASUS FAUCHALD, 1972 (ANNELIDA: CAPITELLIDAE) FROM THE CENTRAL INDO-PACIFIC REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript described two new species of a small capitellid genus. Both species are from a region in which the genus Notodasus was not previously collected. The species are fully described and the illustrations are of great quality. The authors provide comparisons of their new species with the most morphologically similar congeners and also provide a key to all species described in Notodasus.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The manuscript is well written and the findings are well justified. I have only provided some minor suggestions to improve the text.
The figures are of great quality but the authors should indicate the position of some features such as prostomium, peristomium, transition between thorax and abdomen and chaetigers 12 and 13. This will facilitate interpretation of the figures.


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

Input:
Title: TWO NEW SPECIES OF NOTODASUS FAUCHALD, 1972 (ANNELIDA: CAPITELLIDAE) FROM THE CENTRAL INDO-PACIFIC REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Even though English is not the mother language of the authors, I think the manuscript is well written; however, I'd suggest you to improve the section "Introduction" to make it a little bit clearer.
I made some correction along this section (pdf file) and a few arrangements on the sentences. Please, check if the meaning of the sentence remained.

Suggestions (also see pdf file):

Line 37: Please, review this number. Currently, they are over 14,000 described species; see new papers (Bleidorn et al., 2015).
Line 49: Improve this sentence, please.
Line 73: I suggest you to improve this sentence. I made some suggestions to make it clearer. Check if the meaning remained the same.
Line 76: Re-write this sentence, please. I didn't understand what you meant. Use comas to make your sentence clearer.
Line 82: The word “yield” means another thing that doesn’t fit into this sentence in my opinion. It’s just a suggestion.
Line 84: I think you should not generalize; there are oceans where this genus has not been studied yet. Still on line 84, the term “discover”, besides highly used on taxonomic papers, it’s not appropriate. We do not "discover" new species, they were there! We have the opportunity to identify them. Again, it’s just my opinion.
Experimental design: The descriptions and discussion of the new species are very good and concise. However, I made some corrections (pdf file) and a few suggests in these sections.

Line 299: The type of epithelium IS a morphological character, so I'd suggest you to include "other morphological cgaracters" on this sentence.
Figure 3: Despite you put the abbreviations on figure 3 I can't see them. Check them, please.
Figure 6: Include abbreviations on legend.
Figure 7: Include abbreviations on legend.
Figure 9: The contrast of these images is not very good; try to edit them. Maybe, do not use a black bottom; try a dark gray if you couldn’t improve the images.
Validity of the findings: This study is very important and helpful for the taxonomy of the family Capitellidae, which has been studying more frequently on the last years, fortunately.

The report of new species is a sign we still have to pay efforts to know and understand our species diversity worldwide. Besides, researches made at poorly studied areas are very important as well.
Additional comments: Very good work with amazing drawings!


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: CLONING, PHYLOGENETIC RESEARCH, AND PROKARYOTIC EXPRESSION STUDY OF THE METABOLIC DETOXIFICATION GENE EOGSTS1 IN EMPOASCA ONUKII MATSUDA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript titled “Cloning, sequence analysis and phylogenetic research study of the metabolic detoxification gene, EoGSTs1, in Empoasca onukii Matsuda” by Zhang et al. reports the characterization of glutathione S-transferase from Empoasca onukii. The study is providing insights for the future use of EoGST protein for the management of chemical resistance in leafhoppers. The manuscript is overall well-structured and focused. The findings are interesting and will be utilized by the scientific community. However most of the conclusions are presented based on the bioinformatic evidences only.
Experimental design: Introduction, materials and methods and discussion section is well written and is clearly providing all the necessary details. The experiments are well executed.
Validity of the findings: I have only minor concerns,

Result section in few places is containing the part of the method that should go with materials and methods section, for e.g., Line 128, Please move all the methods part in result under methods section.

Please comment on the activity of EoGST. Authors should consider doing activity assay of EoGST in vitro.

Please elaborate the figure legends. Mainly figure 1, 5 and 7.
Additional comments: Manuscript is well structured, focused and experimentally sound and can be considered for publication in PeerJ after minor revision.


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

Input:
Title: CLONING, PHYLOGENETIC RESEARCH, AND PROKARYOTIC EXPRESSION STUDY OF THE METABOLIC DETOXIFICATION GENE EOGSTS1 IN EMPOASCA ONUKII MATSUDA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript entitled “Cloning, sequence analysis and phylogenetic research study of the metabolic detoxification gene, EoGSTs1, in Empoasca onukii Matsuda” authors cloned full-length cDNA of EoGSTs1 from Empoasca onukii Matsuda and used several in silico tools to perform some analysis to reveal characteristics. Manuscript is short but well written. This is not the first instance of cloning GST from Empoasca onukii Matsuda. An 823 bp of GST cDNA was already been reported in PMID: 30296272.  Although authors made effort to clone EoGSTs1 and for some in-silico analysis of the GST protein, this manuscript lacks novelty and biological validation by sufficient experiments to publish in “PeerJ”.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: 1)	This is not the first instance of cloning GST from Empoasca onukii Matsuda. An 823 bp of GST cDNA was already been reported in PMID: 30296272.
2)	In Line 81-82, authors mentioned that they performed screening of transcriptome data to identify differentially expressed genes upon chemical treatment. But authors didn’t show any analysis in the manuscript. Need explanation.
3)	Why authors used specific concentration of thiamethoxam and time point. They could have showed some kinetics of expression of GST at least.
4)	Did authors submit the sequence in public database?
5)	Authors could have purified and characterized the protein which would makes manuscript acceptable. some in vitro detoxification studies can also be done?
6)	Line 66, Expand DEM
7)	Ref missing in line 172.


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: CLONING, PHYLOGENETIC RESEARCH, AND PROKARYOTIC EXPRESSION STUDY OF THE METABOLIC DETOXIFICATION GENE EOGSTS1 IN EMPOASCA ONUKII MATSUDA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised manuscript titled “Cloning, sequence analysis and phylogenetic research study of the metabolic detoxification gene, EoGSTs1, in Empoasca onukii Matsuda” by Zhang et al has reported most of my concerns. However, I have still found many grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and ambiguous sentences that need to be corrected (especially in the method section). Therefore, the manuscript needs serious attention in the writing part, before being considered for the publication. Authors could consider taking help from any native english speaker for the language correction in the manuscript.
Experimental design: Experiments are well executed. Please consider reducing the number of figures by combining figures and as different parts of same figure wherever possible, it would help the future readers of the manuscript to understand it better and will make the manuscript aesthetically sound.
Some more comments:
Line 135: Correct the name of restriction enzyme.
Line 136: Replace clone strain with cloning strain
Line 132: Revise the method section as it is poorly written and contains number of grammatical errors and typos.
Line 318: Remove “an”
Validity of the findings: Findings are interesting.
Additional comments: Manuscript is  experimentally sound and can be considered for publication in PeerJ after minor revision.
Please check for spellings and typos present throughout the manuscript, even the rebuttal letter contains number of spelling 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: CLONING, PHYLOGENETIC RESEARCH, AND PROKARYOTIC EXPRESSION STUDY OF THE METABOLIC DETOXIFICATION GENE EOGSTS1 IN EMPOASCA ONUKII MATSUDA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I appreciate the author's efforts for corrections made in the manuscript. They answered most of my concerns. But I have the following concerns which need to be addressed before acceptance.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Comments to authors
-	English language need to have relook for newly added paragraphs to the draft and correct where ever required
-	Line 44, change enzymes assay to enzyme activity assay
-	Remove common in line 45
-	Mention at first instance recombinant EoGSRs1 (rEoGSTs1) and Use it as a synonym throughout the manuscript where ever your mentioning recombinant protein or recombinant enzyme.
-	Use of unique synonym EoGST vs EoGSTs1?? Throughout the manuscript
-	Line 122, correct -3 ul
-	Mention Top10 strain correctly. Ecoli top10??
-	Line 180/181, use term primary antibody instead of first antibody, secondary HRP antibody instead second antibody
-	Line 319, Protein gel?? Means SDS-PAGE?


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: CLONING, PHYLOGENETIC RESEARCH, AND PROKARYOTIC EXPRESSION STUDY OF THE METABOLIC DETOXIFICATION GENE EOGSTS1 IN EMPOASCA ONUKII MATSUDA
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Zhang et al. has improved a lot after revision and can now be considered for publication in PeerJ.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: Authors have done nice job in revising the 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: CLONING, PHYLOGENETIC RESEARCH, AND PROKARYOTIC EXPRESSION STUDY OF THE METABOLIC DETOXIFICATION GENE EOGSTS1 IN EMPOASCA ONUKII MATSUDA
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was significantly improved and now suitable to publish in PeerJ. I would recommend accepting this article.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The manuscript was significantly improved and now suitable to publish in PeerJ. I would recommend accepting this article.

Minor:
make a space between the and multiscan in the line 179
In line 162, authors wrote "conducted PVDF transmembrane". Please correct. IS that PVDF transfter?


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 COMPLETE MITOCHONDRIAL GENOMES OF FIVE LONGICORN BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: CERAMBYCIDAE) AND PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN CERAMBYCIDAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Dr Wang and collaborators have sequenced five new mitogenomes of cerambycids. The manuscript presents a description of the genomes and a phylogenetic reconstruction of the group. The genomes are well described and provide some insight into the genome evolution in the group. The phylogenetic reconstructions provide some new insights, even if they are not conclusive (something that is nevertheless not unexpected given the complexity of the group).
The genomic section is well structured and clear. The phylogenetic analyses are standard in the field. The introduction and discussion, with ample reference to preexisting literature, are above standard for this type of studies.

I encourage the Editor to seek for advice from a specialist of cerambycids, as I am not in the position to evaluate this part of the study.
In the end, I would suggest publication after minimal editing (see comments above).

- Language is clear and correct.
- Intro and backgroud are clear and reference to preexisting literature is ample.
- Structure of the manuscript seems to conform to PeerJ standards.
- Figures are relevant and high quality (minor comments below).
- Sqn files covering all new genomes with annotations are proveded as raw data.
Experimental design: - Research is within the scopes of the journal
- Research question well defined and relevant for the currect knowledge of cerambycid mitochondrial genomics.
- Research is conducted according to ‘standard’ methodological standards in the field.
- Methods are described in sufficient detail (minor comments below)
Validity of the findings: - Impact and novelty not assessed, as from the journal’s instruction to reviewers.
- Sequence data have been provided and, most important, will be made available through GenBank. - Correctness of sequence data is assumed. Given the twist of OpenJ towards ‘openness’, I would encourage the authors to make the two alignments available through the journal’s website.
- Speculation is limited and identifiable.
- Conclusions are well in line with the results.
Additional comments: Lines 93-94: please rewrite.
Lines 112-114: it is not clear wether the additional primers were used as sequencing primers over the 11 amplicons or to amplify/sequence additional fragments.
Line 151: how were starting minimal partitions for PartitionFinder identified?
Lines 154-156: please  confirm that these models are the ones identified by PartitionFinder.
Line 157: 10 million generations may not be appropriate for a dataset of this size. Please check traces in Tracer to confirm optimal convergence.
Line 170 and elsewhere: please refer to the ancestral Pancrustacean arrangement as such (to benefit the non specialist reader).
Line 239: please define ‘conserved’. In structure? In sequence? In molecular features? The notion of the AT rich region is conserved sounds a little strange.
Line 251: why ‘unexpectedly’?
Line 264: randomly meaning equally?
Line 294: did the authors observe any similarity in sequence between the spacer and any of the neighbouring tRNAs that would support their model?
Tables S1-7: please check column formatting for uniformity (this may be a file conversion problem)

Figure 1: column height (sum of two columns for S and L if collectively analyzed) should, in my understanding, sum to the number of different codons for a given aminoacid. S in the last panel, on the other hand, seems to sum to 7.5 (in figure as in table). Please check.
Figure S6. Naming tRNAs using alphabetic letters is useless and slightly confusing. I would valorize the grid pattern of this figure naming columns (species) and rows (tRNAs) instead.
Figures S1-S5. Considering that base composition/skews are not very informative at the nucleotide scale, and that gene order is conserved, the authors may evaluate the possibility to simplify figures into one single collective schematic representation of genomes.
Figure 2: the second step of panel a is not totally clear. Didn’t the authors hypothesize an incorrect match between the two copies of the repeat?
Figures 3-4: figures appear at slightly low resolution in my pdf. Would it be possible to have a better image definition is the final output?


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 COMPLETE MITOCHONDRIAL GENOMES OF FIVE LONGICORN BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: CERAMBYCIDAE) AND PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN CERAMBYCIDAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: Wang et al. present a good paper looking at mitochondrial phylogenomics of Cerambycidae, adding additional five longicorn beetle mitogenomes. This work contributes to the reconstruction of higher-level phylogeny of Cerambycidae. The large intergenic region identified in the new mitogenomes is interesting. Whether this feature can serve as a synapomorphy of Pterolophia need further sequencing more mitogenomes in this group. Whether this feature can serve as a synapomorphy for the genus Pterolophia need sequencing more mitogenomes in this group.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Although this MS is pretty well written, some sentences need to be improved. I've made some editorial suggestions on a copy of the manuscript which will be attached to this review. This shouldn't be too hard to turn around for publication.

I have a couple of points which need addressing.
1) The Cerambycinae and Lepturinae was recovered to be non-monophyletic, because the Lepturinae is paraphyletic in Figure 4 and the Cerambycinae is polyphyletic in Figure 3-4. Thus, using non-monophyletic may be suitable to describe the Cerambycinae and Lepturinae.
2) The pre-settings for partitions of alignments should be provided. For example, you can set 15 blocks according to gene types or 41 blocks according to codon positions and gene types. Additionally, the partition schemes inferred by PartitionFinder should also be presented in this paper.


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 COMPLETE MITOCHONDRIAL GENOMES OF FIVE LONGICORN BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: CERAMBYCIDAE) AND PHYLOGENETIC RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN CERAMBYCIDAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout
Experimental design: Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: The manuscript entitled “The complete mitochondrial genomes of ﬁve longicorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) and phylogenetic relationships within Cerambycidae” was well organized and clearly written in terms of grammar and style. The most important scientific contribution of this study is five new mitochondrial genomes of Cerambycid species have been determined. This study attempts to reconstruct the mitochondrial phylogeny of Cerambycidae but has some issues unsolved. My suggestions are as follows:

1. In methods section, authors stated “The optimal partitioning scheme and best models were selected by the program PartionFinder 1.1.1…”, but the result of partitioning scheme and models have not been showed.

2. in RESULTS AND DISCUSSION section, the authors discussed the non-coding region and stated “According to Du et al. (2017), four species of Hycleus genera harbor similar lengths of large intergenic region…”, but this expression was not appropriated. Du et al. 2017 emphasized the location and sequence similarity of the non-coding region in Hycleus species, but not the lengths.

3. For phylogenetic analysis, why only nucleotide data were used? Why do not use amino acid sequences? Or both? Previous studies showed that the Coleoptera phylogeny is sensitive to different mitochondrial datasets and analytical methods. In my opinion, additional phylogenetic analyses with more datasets (amino acid and nucleotide with different partitions) and more analytical methods (ML, MrBayes and PhyloBayes) are necessary.

Some issues have not resolved in the phylogenetic analysis in this manuscript, and the authors have not attempted more. I think maybe some issues would be well recovered if the phylogenetic analyses were complemented with more datasets and more analytical methods (maybe not). But this would greatly improve the manuscript.

4. Several figures are of not good quality, and need to be improved.


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: ASSESSING BLUE ORCHARD BEE (OSMIA LIGNARIA) PROPAGATION AND POLLINATION SERVICES IN THE PRESENCE OF HONEY BEES (APIS MELLIFERA) IN UTAH TART CHERRIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In the study, the authors set out to determine the impact that native, commercially managed Blue Orchard Bees (BOBs) have on crop yield in tart cherry production in orchards that were seemingly saturated with non-native commercially managed honey bees. I feel that the manuscript itself is very well-written, and I have no issues with grammar, etc. The structure of the manuscript, use of references, figures and tables are all suitable.

The authors provide context in the introduction as to why this is important in that native pollinators are worth developing and evaluating as managed pollinators of crops, in part because in supports native species, but more importantly, that they may help relieve some of the burden on crop production associated with honey bee health and availability. They also point out that tart cherry is a self-compatible crop that, while not requiring insect pollinators to produce fruit, benefits greatly from insect pollinators, with up to a 5-fold increase in fruit set (though what this represents in total fruit set is not mentioned: What is the maximum fruit set for this crop? What is a good versus poor yield?).
Experimental design: This study was done through the use of paired orchards, some receiving BOBs in addition to honey bees, with control orchards not receiving BOBs, thus being pollinated by honey bees only.  Unfortunately, the authors do not really describe what a good yield looks like for cherry production, i.e., were no differences observed with the addition of BOBs because 30% fruit set represents the maximum?

To me, the experimental design does not address the title of this paper, as we do not really see what BOBs are capable of doing on their own in the pollination of this crop in Utah. A logical additional option was to have orchards with BOBs, but without honey bees. This is likely hard to do, as honey bees are virtually ubiquitous, and there are few placed in the USA where one can study crop pollination without honey bees being present (whether brought in, or not). Thus, BOBs are not really evaluated in a way that increases our understanding of their potential in this crop system, or that promotes them as a viable alternative managed pollinator of this crop to honey bees, as it appears that they do not have an impact even though they used the crop floral resources for nest provisions. The take home message for growers may unfortunately be to just use honey bees for tart cherry pollination. As such, I do not feel this study really offers a suitable evaluation of BOBs as tart cherry pollinators.
Validity of the findings: In this study, no large differences in fruit set and weight were found in orchards with and without BOBs, though seemingly the presence of BOBs lowered these in one year. These results suggest that pollination was likely maximized by honey bees alone, and supplemental pollination (i.e., addition of BOBs) above the honey bee stocking rate used here is not necessary, and in fact is likely a waste of money for growers. Interestingly, it seems that tart cherry has a maximum fruit set of 25-30%, though the ideal range for crop production and profit is not mentioned. Presumably this is good level, and the bees provided full pollination, and other internal (i.e., physiological) factors prevent the trees from obtaining a higher yield.
Additional comments: In addition to my comments above:

In the abstract and elsewhere, it is a good idea to indicate that Osmia lignaria is a native, commercial pollinator.
After first mention of Osmia lignaria (or any species), it is okay to use “O. lignaria”, but the standard practice is to not use the abbreviated form at the beginning of a sentence (e.g., lines 19, 60). Thus, use the full form at the beginning of a sentence, and use the shortened form in the middle of a sentence (e.g., line 26). This should be done consistently.
Line 33, eighth
Line 40, remove “additionally”
Line 42, “studies” is plural, but only one study (a 90 year old study in fact) is cited.
Line 73. Is there a reference which supports that an abdominal scopa increases pollination?
Line 132. “incidence of pollen ball” is odd wording, and perhaps just state “We were also able to identify uneaten pollen provisions from the images…” or something similar, or put “pollen ball” in quotes, as you use this code in table 1.
Line 168. 111% female recover versus 32%. Under ideal conditions, what are BOBs capable of in terms of population recovery? Do you feel that the presence of honey bees had a negative impact on BOB recovery? On line 119 you indicate that the BOBs were left in the orchard for five weeks; when were the honey bees removed, or was there continued competition for food even after the crop finished flowering? What did BOBs feed on after cherry?


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: ASSESSING BLUE ORCHARD BEE (OSMIA LIGNARIA) PROPAGATION AND POLLINATION SERVICES IN THE PRESENCE OF HONEY BEES (APIS MELLIFERA) IN UTAH TART CHERRIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript asses the effect of introducing Osmia lignaria in addition to the normal honey bee stock, on yield in cherry orchards. This is an important assessment because, beyond being effective at pollinating flowers, farmers need to know if there is economic benefit (increase in yield) of using this alternative pollinator.  The manuscript is written in good English. The literature review is good, although some of the citation could be more recent, and some of the information presented need citations. Figures are good and clear, axes labels of fig 3 could be improved. See my comments on the manuscript. The raw data is available.
Experimental design: The research questions are not explicitly stated in the text, which is something that the authors could include. The aim of this study is important, because if we want farmers to implement alternative pollinators we have to prove that they are adding benefits. I think the authors could do a better job at explain why assessing of O. lignaria in conjunction with honey bees is important and how it fits into the bigger goal of implementing alternative pollinators as a rutting practice in orchards (filling the knowledge gap). It would be good if the authors stated their hypothesis in the introduction.
The methods are clear and detailed enough to replicate. Although some reports find that O. lignaria won’t fly more than 50 m when they have their preferred resources close to their nest, they can fly more than 600 m, as the authors stated in the introduction. OL+ plots were 100 m away from OL- plots, so it is possible that O. ligaria from OL+ plots could have flown to the OL- plot, which will confound the effect of the treatment and the control. This problem could have been address by making observation on the OL- plot during bloom to make sure there were not visits from O. lignaria. I recognize the difficulty in finding an orchard big enough that would allow the proper speciation between plots, or finding multiple growers that would be willing to allow researched to run experiments in their properties, and I agree with the authors in that this is probably a case of pollination saturation due to honey bees, but I think the authors should acknowledge and discuss the possibility of the treatment-mix (see comments on text).
Validity of the findings: The findings of this study are of great value for the alternative pollinators management body of knowledge, as it shows that even when alternative pollinators exist and can be managed, the successful implementation in orchards and crops will require an integrated system than also include honey bees in the equation. This study counts with two years of data, so the results seem to be consistent. The data analysis sounds appropriate, but the authors could be more descriptive on the model used to analyzed the data (see comments on text). The conclusions are clear and based on the results obtained, and the authors propose steps to follow in future projects. Once the authors clarify the research questions/objectives, they could be linked to the conclusions.
Additional comments: Use Adobe reader to see my comments on the 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: REDUCED GRAY MATTER VOLUME IN MALE ADOLESCENT VIOLENT OFFENDERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 'no comment'
Experimental design: 'no comment'
Validity of the findings: 'no comment'
Additional comments: 1.	The author mentioned that most of the previous studies regarding violence-related structural abnormality were carried out in adults (page 7 line 80) . I am wondering is there any difference between adults and adolescents on GMV.

2.	The English language should be improved to ensure the audience can clearly understand your text. For example:
Furthermore, the majority of previous violence-related studies were carried out on male(page8 line 99)

3.	The author mentioned this study focus on specific regions (page 8 line 103). How to define “specific”?  why the author focus on this “specific regions”?

4.	Did author consider the comorbidity among adolescent offenders (CD, ADHD,PD, BD) in this study? Since the comorbidity cold be act as confounding factor.

5.	The author mentioned“it is reasonable to confer that reduced GMV in the frontal-temporal-parietal-subcoritcal ……….. thus resulting in inappropriate, or even violent behaviors”.
6.	This is a cross-section study, so the conclusion should be interpreted with some caution.

7.	There are other factors related to violent behaviors, such as stress and personality traits. Author need to address these factors in the limitation.


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: REDUCED GRAY MATTER VOLUME IN MALE ADOLESCENT VIOLENT OFFENDERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Professor Wang and his team reported that reduced GMV in the frontal-temporal-parietal- subcortical circuit related to violent behaviors in 30 male adolescents. This study provided important clue for us to investigate the biomarker of violent behaviors, especially in the forensic psychiatry. As a whole, the findings of this study provide useful biomarkers for we investigating the violets behaviors. Although the sample is relatively small, from my opinion, we needed this kind study to explore the biomarker to help the psychiatrist, especially for the psychiatrist who act as a forensic psychiatry expert.
Experimental design: None comments about the design.
Validity of the findings: The findings provided usueful clues for us to  investigate the biomarker of  violent behaviors.
Additional comments: I provide some comments as bellow for the author to consider,

1. In the section of introduction, provide a hypothesis about you study will enhance the celerity for us understand your study.
2.  In the section of Methods , please detailed describe the "study-specific  template in Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) space" , because the samples in your study are adolescents, it need specific template.

3. In the section of results, please add the scatter plot of sensitivity  and specificity.


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: REDUCED GRAY MATTER VOLUME IN MALE ADOLESCENT VIOLENT OFFENDERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 53-54，56-57，102： English language need improve， some typos

In the method section, when the authors did those comparisons, did they control for the potential covariates, such as the total intracranial volume — the total value of brain white matter, gray matter and CSF they listed in table 1.

Results from line 208 to 209 were repeated as they were mentioned in line 205-208.

Figure 2 is not quite clear such as we don’t even know the left or right side of the brain.

More information should be showed in table 1, such as the different kinds of aggressive behavior as the authors mentioned a little bit in line 111 or other demographic information of all participants.
Experimental design: no comment.
Validity of the findings: no comment.
Additional comments: As the authors mentioned, several previous studies reported decreased GMV of OFC in subjects prone to violence (Bertsch et al., 2013), negative correlation between GMV of OFC and impulsive (Kumari et al., 2009), aggressive (Gansler et al., 2009) or psychopathic (Ermer et al., 2012, 2013) level. I was wondering whether they have some scales for evaluating the offending behaviors or symptoms of those adolescents? If so, that would be interesting to see whether those finding of brain regions were correlated with those scores or symptoms. If not, they may add it in their study in the future.

That would be great if the authors are able to have validation of those finding in some other independent sample set.


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: REDUCED GRAY MATTER VOLUME IN MALE ADOLESCENT VIOLENT OFFENDERS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revision manuscript is better. The answer is better.
Experimental design: Better
Validity of the findings: better
Additional comments: The revision manuscript is better,about the question I commentted, the author had answered , the first MNI, I aim to suggest she/he using three deminsional method, is will acquried a better viusal effect. However, this did not influence the result. About the scatter polt, figure , it will demonstrat the relatinship of brain alterations and syptoms. You reported in your mamuscript. I suggestion is that ,I like Figure to demonstrated your result, this is my style , dont infulecnce your results.

In summary, I agree the answer of my comments, I agree to accept this mamuscript.


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: REDUCED GRAY MATTER VOLUME IN MALE ADOLESCENT VIOLENT OFFENDERS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The revised manuscript is improved.


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: NON-DINOSAURIAN DINOSAUROMORPHS FROM THE CHINLE FORMATION (UPPER TRIASSIC) OF THE EAGLE BASIN, NORTHERN COLORADO: DROMOMERON ROMERI (LAGERPETIDAE) AND A NEW TAXON, KWANASAURUS WILLIAMPARKERI (SILESAURIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors do an excellent job clearly reporting the presence of multiple dinosauromorphs from the Eagle Basin of Colorado. A new genus and species of silesaurid is erected and a commonly recovered clade with Silesauridae is given an appropriate taxon name. The taxonomy is well done and the chosen names are quite good.

LIT CITED:
This work integrates much of our current understanding of Triassic Dinosauromorpha, but I would suggest a few additions.
1) Peecook et al. 2018 (SVP Memoir): Peecook et al. follow the same logic as the paper under review in referring morphologically consistent silesaurid elements from the Ntawere Formation to the one named taxon (Lutungutali sitwensis). Like in the Eagle Basin, silesaurid elements in Zambia are found isolated. I’d encourage the authors to consider adding comparisons of the maxilla (Line 891) and femur of Lutungutali to the descriptions of Kwanasaurus. I applaud the authors for the clarity with which they explain the rationale of referring all silesaurid bones to Kwanasaurus, and the openness with which they address the potential shortcomings of the assumption. Line 470.

Peecook et al. also describe a range of size variation in Ntawere silesaurid remains (femora from ~60 to ~380mm). Lines 1303-1310.

Probably the most important contribution of Peecook et al. is the explicit treatment of the lack of age constraints on ‘Middle’ Triassic assemblages in Zambia and Tanzania. At this point, radiometric dates from South America override now defunct long range biostratigraphy to indicate that both the Zambian and Tanzanian assemblages are at least Ladinian and quite possibly Carnian (Late Triassic) in age. No evidence supports the statement that the Zambian or Tanzanian assemblages are Anisian in age. This changes the overview written by the authors, making the story simpler. Lines 1379-1393.

2) Barrett et al. 2015 (Gondwana Research): Barrett et al. describe a very large silesaurid femur (~345mm) from the Lifua Member of the Manda Beds in Tanzania. At the time of publication, the large femur was hypothesized to be a somatically mature individual of Asilisaurus. Lines 1303-1310.

3) Marsh 2018 (PaleoBios): This paper is cited by the authors, but I would also include it on line 1277 at the opening of the Discussion.

4) Wynd et al. 2018 (SVP Memoir): Wynd et al. reinforces the age constraints for Zambian and Tanzanian Triassic assemblages using the therapsid record (Cynognathus, Diademodon, Kannemeyeria).

FIGURES:
The stereo photos and accompanying line drawings are excellent.

Figure 11 E&F: the angular is mislabeled as the articular ‘ar’.
Figure 11F: ‘rf’ is incorrectly written as ‘re’ and there are no guidelines. If ‘re’ is not a mistake, it is not in the Anatomical Abbreviations.
Figure 13 B&J&N: ‘rf’ is incorrectly written as ‘re’.
Figures 19, 21: ‘lg’ is not in the Anatomical Abbreviations.
Figure 20: should ‘ts’ be ‘tc’?
Experimental design: The figures and descriptions are thorough, and the appendices contain additional comprehensive morphological data. Any paleontologist could recreate the analyses of the authors easily.
Validity of the findings: Strong discussion. I expect interesting future work will be possible on the dentition and trophic evolution of Silesauridae.
Additional comments: Line 183: It is unclear is the associated pseudosuchian elements are part of the specimen DMNH EPV.63873 as currently written.
Line 194: 'ends of the femora form'
Line 1107: Should the femoral head feature be the first of the listed autapomorphies, and therefore '1'?


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: NON-DINOSAURIAN DINOSAUROMORPHS FROM THE CHINLE FORMATION (UPPER TRIASSIC) OF THE EAGLE BASIN, NORTHERN COLORADO: DROMOMERON ROMERI (LAGERPETIDAE) AND A NEW TAXON, KWANASAURUS WILLIAMPARKERI (SILESAURIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The MS by Martz & Small reports important new findings from a relatively poorly explored outcropping area of the Chinle Formation – the Eagle Basin, in Colorado – describing new dinosauromorph specimens, including a new silesaurid taxon – Kwanasaurus williamparkeri. Hence, it provides data for a better understanding of Triassic diversity at higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere. The MS is well executed, does not have significant flaws, and can be published nearly as it is. I would just ask the authors to consider the minor points listed in the "General comments for the author".
Experimental design: See "Basic reporting" and "General comments for the author"
Validity of the findings: See "Basic reporting" and "General comments for the author"
Additional comments: Lines 38, 459, and 1266: it is preferable to avoid using the term “more derived” in phylogenetic studies, as one may wonder in which direction is that “derivation”. So, replace “more derived than” by (for example) “forming the sister group to”
Line 39: replace “specialization” by “specializations”
Lines 48, 64, 72, and 1381: it is important to note that the Chañares Formation has been radioisotopically dated as early Carnian (Late Triassic) so that its fossil taxa can no longer be considered representatives of the Middle Triassic fauna (Marsicano et al. 2016. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 509–513). In line 48, the Middle Triassic reference may be correct as a historical account, but this is not the case in lines 64,72, and 1381.
Line 50: with a single putative record (Pisanosaurua mertii) ornithischians can hardly be considered to have a “global distribution”. Please rewrite accordingly.
Line 60: which work? There are two paper mentioned beforehand.
Line 75: also during Norian times, as indicated by Sacisaurus agudoensis, in the Caturrita Formation, and Dromomeron gigas, in the Los Colorados Formation.
Line 159 and along the text: strictly speaking, autapomorphies apply only to species. Hence, replace “autapomorphy(ies)” by “apomorphy(ies)” in lines 159, 161, 193, 257, 260, 273, 324, 810, 892, 973, 1104, 1122, and 1238. As for lines 388, 389, and 1023, even if Kwanasaurus is a monospecific genus and the generic epithet is used as the reference for the species, the term autapomorphy should still be avoided, because Kwanasaurus is a supraspecific taxon (also for other genera in lines 454 and 1334)
Line 195: replace “ventrally” by “distally”
Line 209: replace “autapomorphy” by “autapomorphies”
Line 222: include “in” before “shuvosaurids”
Line 234: replace “shaft” by “bone”
Line 256: include “,” after “Marasuchus”
Line 261: replace “The” by “That”
Line 276: delete “the” before “much”
Line 278: delete “In ventral view,”
Line 280: replace “element” by “scapula”
Line 283: replace “surface” by “margin” (two times)
Line 289: include “groups” after “two”
Line 292: replace “distal” by “dorsal”
Line 294: delete “occurs” before “in Tawa”
Lines 298-299: replace “This may indicate an ossified suprascapula” by “This may indicate that an ossified suprascapular was present”
Line 315: replace “and likely belong to Kwanasaurus, but” by “, which likely belong to Kwanasaurus. Yet,”
Line 325: replace “posterior lateral and medial” by “lateral and medial posterior”
Line 329: “more or less” should be replaced by a more precise term.
Lines 333-334: replace “lacks a concavity separating the crest from the condyles” by “is not separated from the condyles by a concavity”
Line 344: replace “and then become” by “then becoming”
Line 346: replace “at” by “of”
Line 352: explain better the “distal thickening”
Line 359: include “a” after “crest,”
Line 361: replace “The elements cannot currently be completely ruled out as” by “Yet, it cannot be completely ruled out that the elements correspond to”
Lines 368-370: definition of Silesauridae is unnecessary, exclude.
Line 388: include “all” before “other”
Lines 398-421: the differential diagnosis should be rewritten as to include the differences to Kwanasaurus taxon by taxon.
Line 449: replace “dinosauromorph elements” by “dinosauromorphs”
Line 450: delete “any” before “elements”
Line 457: delete the entire line as it provides no relevant information in the given context.
Line 460: replace “often” by “taxa often fall into”.
Line 472: delete “a” after “least”
Lines 473-474: replace “that is subject to potential falsification with the discovery of associated material, subject to revision if more complete specimens are ever recovered” by “such hypothesis is subject to potential falsification by the discovery of associated material, and subject to revision if more complete specimens are recovered”
Line 479: delete “known from the collection”
Line 480: delete “long”
Line 484: replace “medial flange and their robust form compared to other” by “flange the bone has on its medial surface and their robust form compared to the maxillae of other”
Line 500: include “other” before “Eagle”
Line 522: replace “although” by “and”
Line 528: replace “here” by “in this position”
Lines 529-530: replace “at the base of the ascending process of the maxilla (Bittencourt et al., 2014, p. 191) may be homologous (labeled “pm.ar?” in Fig. 10C)” by “(labeled “pm.ar?” in Fig. 10C) at the base of the ascending process of the maxilla (Bittencourt et al., 2014, p. 191) may be homologous to that concavity”
Line 544: replace “but it is also” by “end”
Line 596: include “main part of the” before “maxilla”
Line 598: delete “on its surface”
Line 604: include “that of” after “to”
Line 666: replace “silesaurid dentary described” by “dentary described for a silesaurid”
Line 667: delete “of the element” and include “silesaurid” after “described”
Line 673: include “in” after “probably” and replace “is” by “of”
Line 727: include “that it” after “indicate”
Line 729: include “that of” after “from”
Line 751: replace “was” by “is”
Line 766 and elsewhere: it is really not clear to me that the “Meckelian groove extends to the anterior tip of the dentary”, it could in fact end rostrally where it “narrows to almost nothing beneath the third tooth position”. I believe that a stronger argument should be put forward here indicating why the more rostral grooves are also part of the Meckelian groove and not only grooves related to the dentary symphysis.
Lines 786-787: last sentence is repeated and can be excluded.
Line 789: include “of the maxilla” after “process”
Line 796: replace “tooth” by “teeth”
Line 814: replace “ridges” by “ridge”
Line 844: replace “maxilla” by “maxillae”
Line 845: include “are” after “they”
Line 858: perhaps discuss here if the “canting” stands as an apomorphy uniting Sacisaurus plus Diodorus, as proposed by Kammerer et al. (2012).
Line 927: replace “dentary” by “dentaries”
Line 932: delete “(“ before “while”
Line 938: delete “teeth” before “tooth”
Line 940: delete “patterns” before “pattern”
Lines 942-945: delete the last sentence of the paragraph, it bears no relevant information on the given context.
Line 969: the abbreviations “ect” and “ent” (epicondyles) cannot be used in reference to the condyles (as seems to be the case here). Please modify.
Line 971: delete “here” after “occurs”
Line 984: replace “is probably” by “probably belongs to” and “from” by “in relation to”
Lines 990-991: a horizontally oriented iliac blade is a rather unusual feature. It seems that this part of the bone is not complete even in the best-preserved ilium of Kwanasaurus. It would be nice to see a more extensive explanation of this condition here, or even some measure of uncertainty (if this is the case).
Line 1000 and 1009: “flattened”/”flattens” in which direction?
Line 1052: include “dorsoventrally” before “deep”
Lines 1059-1060: exclude part that compares with Ornithosuchus, or explain why this animal is used only here for comparison.
Line 1076: delete “this” after “blade”
Line 1085: explain why, or provide reference to such, the third sacral vertebra may be the “primordial second”.
Line 1091: Silesaurus has clearly at least three sacral vertebrae, perhaps four (although probably not), but surely not two.
Lines 1104-1116: this part is confused and needs rewriting. First it is said that “two of the following” (the following supposedly being those numbered 1-3 below) features are seen in all silesaurids, then a “fourth” feature appears in the paragraph (lines 1107-1108). Also, the item number 3 is not merely the description of a feature (as it should be and as is the case of items 1-2), but also includes its distribution in Asilisaurus. Please, modify as to have itemised all and only character descriptions.
Line 1120: include “of the” before “shape”
Line 1139: would it be “proximally” instead of “distally”?
Line 1162: “swelling with the distal end of the lesser trochanter” is unclear.
Line 1168: replace “the trochanteric shelf” by “it”
Line 1171: include “is probably” before “highly”
Line 1182: delete “other” after “in”
Line 1183: replace “and” by “which are”
Line 1203 and 2013: could it be “anterior” instead of “behind”?
Line 1204: replace “17B” by “18B”
Line 1235: delete “so that”
Lines 1266-1271: rewrite the paragraph as follows “Sulcimentisauria is proposed as the name for the clade including all silesaurids closer to Silesaurus opolensis than to Asilisaurus kongwe (see Systematic Paleontology). Within Sulcimentisauria, Eucoelophysis baldwini and Diodorus scytobrachion are consecutive sister taxa to other sulcimentisaurians, which includes a clade comprising Lutungutali sitwensis and Ignotosaurus fragilis in polytomy with Silesaurus opolensis, Sacisaurus agudoensis, and Kwanasaurus williamparkeri (Figure 23). None of the phylogenetic relationships within Sulcimentisauria.”
Line 1305: “so few approach being complete that little” is unclear.
Line 1383: An Anisian taxon cannot be younger that a Ladnian taxon…
Line 1397: include “the groups” after “and”
Line 1403: replace “now” by “also”; perhaps “major” is too a strong works considering the comment that follows in line 1406: “they are generally rare”.
Line 1404: delete “in” after “and”
Line 1413: non-italicize “and”
Line 1424: replace “represents” by “bear”
Line 1425: replace “the” by “their”


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: KOMBUCHA: A NOVEL MODEL SYSTEM FOR COOPERATION AND CONFLICT IN A COMPLEX MULTI-SPECIES MICROBIAL ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There are many inaccuracy in microbiological and chemical hypotesis reported. References needs to be improved with more specific and recent literature . Moreover I think your English language should be more clear to make more comprensible at a greater audience.
Experimental design: 1-	Lane 46 - I suggest to delete “ethanol-producing” because the yeasts genus isolated in Kombucha’s samples is not specifically ethanol-producer
2-	Lane 55-62 - Many recent papers De Filippis et al. 2018; Gaggia et al. 2019 described better the Kombucha’s microbiome. I suggest you to use more recent references.
3-	Lane 82 - Change with yogurt.
4-	Lanes 115-116 – Please support your thesis with references.
5-	Lanes 130-132 - Why do you mention only lactic acid as control compound?  Lactic acid is not the most representative control agent in fermented foods. Your thesis is not supported by appropriate references. I suggest you to correct and improve the sentence with more exact information supported by references.
6-	Lane 145 - Please be more specific on the assertion “solution of sweet tea”. Describe the different sugar concentration extensively described in literature.
7-	Lane 147 - Please describe the different substrates used in Kombucha fermentation supported by appropriate references.
8-	Lanes 212-217 - Please describe the different organic acids entrust in the acidification process supported by recent references.
9-	Lane 227-229 – For my opinion this is and incorrect information. Please change and improve the affirmation with more recent data based on 16s fingerprinting and NGS sequencing methods .I suggest to improve references.
10-	Lane 240–253 - Hypotesis incorrect supported by insufficient references. Recent study described how oxygen and sugar concentrations are strictly linked to cellulose production in Komagataeibacter spp.
11-	Lanes 268-272 - Unsopported hypothesis. Different autors showed how cellulose production in Kombucha increases during fermentation time.
12-	Lane 301 - What do you mean “can favor”?
13-	Lanes 338-343 - Incorrect assertion, many authors investigated the sourdough microbiome and recent studies shows the big difference between microbial ecology isolated in different sourdoughs.
14-	Lanes 369-372 - Please improve with recent references. I suggest to improve the hypothesis illustrating the nutraceutical effect of organic acids typical of Kombucha’s beverage.
15-	Lanes 377-378- Are you sure of this hypothesis? Gaggia et al. 2019 and other authors observed different dynamics.
Validity of the findings: The goals described in lanes 72-73 isn’t well developed in the conclusions and, in general in the study there are many argument that should be improved with appropiate literature
Additional comments: The study should be improved with more recent and relevant literature and I suggest to correct some microbial and chemical data incorrects.


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: KOMBUCHA: A NOVEL MODEL SYSTEM FOR COOPERATION AND CONFLICT IN A COMPLEX MULTI-SPECIES MICROBIAL ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors descibed  the kombucha fermentation with microbiological details in a clear way. The article is original with very interesting outputs regarding the social behaviour of microorganisms. However, I found that mentioned literatures misses some recent papers on kombucha
(Marsh, A.J.; O’Sullivan, O.; Hill, C.; Ross, R.P.; Cotter, P.D. Sequence-based analysis of the bacterial and fungal compositions of multiple Kombucha (tea fungus) samples. Food Microbiol. 2014, 8, 171–178;
De Filippis, F.; Troise, A.D.; Vitaglione, P.; Ercolini, D. Different temperatures select distinctive acetic acid bacteria species and promotes organic acids production during Kombucha tea fermentation. Food Microbiol. 2018, 73, 11–16;
Gaggìa et al., 2019 Kombucha Beverage from Green, Black and Rooibos Teas: A Comparative Study Looking at Microbiology, Chemistry and Antioxidant Activity. Nutrients, 2019, 11(1), 1; doi:10.3390/nu11010001).
Experimental design: The manuscripts is within the aim and the scope of the journal and the topic is deeply investigated
Validity of the findings: The overall concept has its appropriate conclusion, very interesting, even if as pure microbiologist it was very hard to understand the phylosophy beyond.
Additional comments: 58-59: this statement need a revision, since species within Acetobacteraceae are variable, also depending from the “mother” origin. (as the authors stated in lines 62-63 etc.)

82: please correct “yogourt”

124: please write “subjected”

229-230: authors did not mention others species belonging to Komagateibacter spp. that is the dominant genera in kombucha beverage; authors should also mention more recent paper such as
Marsh, A.J.; O’Sullivan, O.; Hill, C.; Ross, R.P.; Cotter, P.D. Sequence-based analysis of the bacterial and fungal compositions of multiple Kombucha (tea fungus) samples. Food Microbiol. 2014, 8, 171–178;
De Filippis, F.; Troise, A.D.; Vitaglione, P.; Ercolini, D. Different temperatures select distinctive acetic acid bacteria species and promotes organic acids production during Kombucha tea fermentation. Food Microbiol. 2018, 73, 11–16;
Gaggìa et al., 2019 Kombucha Beverage from Green, Black and Rooibos Teas: A Comparative Study Looking at Microbiology, Chemistry and Antioxidant Activity. Nutrients, 2019, 11(1), 1; doi:10.3390/nu11010001.
243-253 please revise the grammar; the colon should be replaced by semi-colon.


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: KOMBUCHA: A NOVEL MODEL SYSTEM FOR COOPERATION AND CONFLICT IN A COMPLEX MULTI-SPECIES MICROBIAL ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: see below
Experimental design: see below
Validity of the findings: see below
Additional comments: I am myself a big proponent of using fermented foods as model systems to study the ecology and evolution of microbial communities. I fully agree with the authors that these are excellent model systems for this purpose---including to study cooperation and conflict among microbes, as the authors propose.

Given the title and introduction of the review that is clearly focused on kombucha, the manuscript is for my taste too superficial with respect to the kombucha microbiology, ecology, and chemistry. I am myself not an expert on the kombucha system, but in comparison to previous literature, for example, the review of Jayabalan et al. (2014) Comprehens Rev in Food Sci and Food Safety, the present manuscript reads as somewhat of a superficial scan of the potential of the kombucha system. Additionally, in the places where the authors do introduce potential new points-of-view or ways in which the kombucha system could be utilised, the motivation for these ideas are often anecdotal and informal, rather than informed by the previous literature on the kombucha system. Some examples are:

  - line 237: "the strands which are suspended from the pellicle and connect multiple layers of the pellicle have an appearance that suggest that they may partially be composed of yeast filaments (see Fig. 2)."

  - line 256: "The pellicle forms on the surface of the liquid, and we have observed it making a tight junction with the sides of the container in which it is being grown."

  - line 268: "Our informal observations of the kombucha systems indicate that the pellicle begins to degrade after being deprived of sweetened tea for several weeks,"

There are some more examples, but overall the reader (at least me) is left with the impression that the bulk of the author's knowledge is from anecdotal superficial observations of the kombucha system. I am sure that there is not the case, and hopefully by adding more detail with respect to cooperation and conflict in kombucha in particular can alleviate this impression.

Overall, I would like to again stress that I fully share the author's enthusiasm for using fermented foods to investigate interactions between microbes, but I am underwhelmed by the specifics of the kombucha system that I learn from the current manuscript compared to what could be applied to many other non-specific mixed-species microbial communities.

Minor comments:

line 178: "cultivation of bacteria by the yeast". This is a fun analogy, but I think there is (yet) no evidence to even suggest that the primary function of the bacteria storing resources in the pellicle is to cultivate yeast. Likely the bacteria would also perform this behaviour in absence of yeast. I of course can be wrong, but this should be formulated much more carefully.


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: KOMBUCHA: A NOVEL MODEL SYSTEM FOR COOPERATION AND CONFLICT IN A COMPLEX MULTI-SPECIES MICROBIAL ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The autors corrected the manuscript extensively and I think they did a good research work
Experimental design: All the source are adeguadetely cited except:
- Gaggia et al. 2018 (correct with Gaggia et al. 2019)
Validity of the findings: For my opinion the autors developed a good research work
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: KOMBUCHA: A NOVEL MODEL SYSTEM FOR COOPERATION AND CONFLICT IN A COMPLEX MULTI-SPECIES MICROBIAL ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: the authors have reviewed the manuscript according to the suggestions.
Experimental design: the authors have reviewed the manuscript according to the suggestions.
Validity of the findings: the authors have reviewed the manuscript according to the suggestions.
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: KOMBUCHA: A NOVEL MODEL SYSTEM FOR COOPERATION AND CONFLICT IN A COMPLEX MULTI-SPECIES MICROBIAL ECOSYSTEM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made a considerable effort to add depth to their review, and as a result the review sits on a much stronger foundation.

 Here are some final remarks:

- line 242: the "enzymes" don't ferment the sugar, right?

- line 261: "neighbouring cells receive the vast majority of sugars," ... of the monomers produced by invertase secreted by a focal cell.

- line 266: "certain bacteria" => directly specify E. coli, unless there are other examples.

- line 369: "environment has a massive impact" => it is rather suggested that the tea type has an impact, whether it is massive or not and why remains unclear.

- line 373: "species of Acetobacter spp..." => remove 'spp.', otherwise it reads "species of ... species"

- line 558: "as they have not had prolonged selection in the same environment as the native community, and thus are less likely to have the enzymatic toolkit required to break down the carbon polymers as readily." => I don't follow why there would be selection for using EPS in kombucha-associated bacteria but not **any** others. I find this argument rather weak.

- line 680: sourdough bacteria are not restricted to obligate heterofermentatitve species, but also include homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative species.
Experimental design: The survey appears exhaustive.
Validity of the findings: The title and aim of the manuscript puts the main emphasis on "cooperation and conflict". In this regard, I have to admit that the final sections on health benefits and viruses seem somewhat out of place. While I think the authors should maintain a high degree of "creative freedom" when writing reviews, this might be something that they would want to consider.
Additional comments: The language has suffered a bit in this revision. I would suggest to the authors to give the manuscript another read over to improve the flow.