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: INTERROGATING COVID-19 VACCINE INTENT IN THE PHILIPPINES WITH A NATIONWIDE OPEN-ACCESS ONLINE SURVEY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally, it is a well-written paper on an important issue, using professional English. The introduction part clearly highlights the meaning of the current work by introducing and summarizing relevant literature in a concise manner, the method used has been explained with details, and findings have been well discussed, explained, and compared with relevant studies in the discussion part.
One suggestion: content in lines 86-97 should not be put in the last paragraph of the introduction.
My main concern is that the online survey asked people's vaccination intention, cue to action about COVID-19 vaccination, and measured HBM constructs. However, the study is titled with vaccine hesitancy, and the main aim has been set around the core term — vaccine hesitancy. However, though the definition of VH has been developed quite broad, I don’t agree with the use of the term in the title and as the main aim in the current online survey, as you didn’t strictly design your questionnaire according to the definition of VH, like the “3C” definition of VH or “5C” definition of VH. It is a study that used HBM as a framework to link some important relevant psychological constructs to people’s vaccination intention and willingness to pay.
Experimental design: It is a well-designed online survey, the sample size is large, particularly the author showed a map of respondents' geographical distribution in the country, which is very convincing for the readers to believe the scale and possible representativeness of the survey. Limitations regarding the obvious systematic bias caused by using an online survey need well explanation — inevitably you exclude all that do not use the internet or do not want to participate in an online survey.
Validity of the findings: The study is a good addition to the international literature on this topic. The findings based on the online survey are clear and the potential bias has been well discussed.
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: INTERROGATING COVID-19 VACCINE INTENT IN THE PHILIPPINES WITH A NATIONWIDE OPEN-ACCESS ONLINE SURVEY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comment
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The use of Vergara as a cited reference recently added by the author post first review of manuscript is being raised as to the accuracy of the information provided by Vergara.  It is because of this that I thought the authors might reflect on accuracy of cited reference carefully first before using it.

Dengvaxia in the Philippines.  The use was for aged 9 year old and above.  Vergara alluded that 600 infant deaths were due to this vaccine.  The conclusion of Vergara as to no Industry or government officials punished seemed to reflect a biased judgement by Vergara when there is no judgement made in courts.


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: INTERROGATING COVID-19 VACCINE INTENT IN THE PHILIPPINES WITH A NATIONWIDE OPEN-ACCESS ONLINE SURVEY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Great paper that can help inform national policy and decision makers involved with management of COVID Pandemic.  Likewise it can also be of help to those involved with health promotions, access to vaccines (e.g. industry).


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: EFFECT OF INTERACTION BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND POLYMORPHISMS OF MTHFR GENE AND SELE GENE ON HYPERTENSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: 1.- Is not clear what methods were used for the determination of the polymorphisms. The authors have only shown the primers for the amplification and the PCR conditions, but how was detected the specific allele?. This point must be clarified.

2.- In my opinion, tables 1-3 are not necessary for the manuscript. Some of this information can be included in the text, in the section on material and methods.

3.- I think that is better the term “polymorphism” instead than “locus”.
Validity of the findings: 1.- Table 5 shows the distribution of the polymorphisms and occupational stress in cases and controls. One logistic regression analysis under inheritance genetic models (recessive, additive, and dominant) in order to establish the possible association of the polymorphisms with risk to present hypertension is necessary before the interaction analysis.

2.- Do the polymorphisms studied have some functional effect? Where are they located, in promoter or coding regions? This point should be discussed.
Additional comments: In the present work, the authors determined two MTHFR and two SELE polymorphisms in patients with and without hypertension in order to establish the interaction of these polymorphisms with occupational stress. The study included 155 individuals with hypertension and 155 without this condition. The results suggest a strong interaction between gene-gene and gene-environment on hypertension. This is an interesting study with some limitations that are commented on by the authors. Some points should be clarified.


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: EFFECT OF INTERACTION BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND POLYMORPHISMS OF MTHFR GENE AND SELE GENE ON HYPERTENSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Table 4 percentages: Should be calculated for different variables within each group, rather than between groups. And t-tests were used to compare the ages of the two groups.
2. Table 5 gene percentages: The percentage of each genotype within different groups should be calculated and additionally OR values could be included to make the results clearer. The genotypes should also preferably be in the order of wild-type pure, heterozygous and finally mutant pure.
Experimental design: Lack of description of the process of sample collection and DNA extraction.
Validity of the findings: 1. "The genotypes GT at locus G98T of the SELE gene, AC and CC at locus A1298C of the MTHFR gene, and CT and TT at locus C677T of the MTHFR gene were associated with the prevalence of hypertension with OR (95% CI) of, respectively, GT: 2.151 (1.227-3.375), AC : 1.917 (1.064-3.453), CC: 2.233 (1.082-4.609), CT: 1.913 (1.085-3.375), TT: 3.117 (1.430-6.795)" This presentation is rather confusing and it is recommended to refer to other literature for a more scientific presentation.
2.It is suggested that some conclusions of the manuscript should not be expressed in a more positive way.
Additional comments: This study was conducted in Xinjiang oil workers to investigate the effects of occupational stress and genetic polymorphisms in the MTHFR and SELE genes on the development of hypertension in occupational personnel. It  has strong relevance for the prevention and treatment of hypertension in occupational populations. The paper is good, but  should improve some aspects of the 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: EFFECT OF INTERACTION BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND POLYMORPHISMS OF MTHFR GENE AND SELE GENE ON HYPERTENSION
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: 1.- Is not clear what methods were used for the determination of the polymorphisms. The authors have only shown the primers for the amplification and the PCR conditions, but how was detected the specific allele?. The authors used the PCR-RFLP. What enzyme was used and what fragments were obtained for each allele/genotype?. This point must be clarified.

2.- Table 5 shows the distribution of the polymorphisms and occupational stress in cases and controls. One logistic regression analysis under inheritance genetic models (recessive, additive, and dominant) in order to establish the possible association of the polymorphisms with risk to present hypertension is necessary before the interaction analysis.
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: 1.- Do the polymorphisms studied have some functional effect? Where are they located, in promoter or coding regions? This point should be 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: EFFECT OF INTERACTION BETWEEN OCCUPATIONAL STRESS AND POLYMORPHISMS OF MTHFR GENE AND SELE GENE ON HYPERTENSION
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
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: SOIL PROPERTIES, ROOT MORPHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO COTTON STALK BIOCHAR ADDITION IN TWO CONTINUOUS CROPPING COTTON FIELD SOILS FROM XINJIANG, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study entitled: "Soil property and cotton root morphology/physiology response to biochar addition in two common soil types from Xinjiang, China" was reviewed. The overall experimental design is reasonable, and the manuscript reads well. However, the authors need to further emphasize the scientific novelty of this work in the introduction with a comprehensive literature review on the topic. The authors need to add a more in-depth discussion for interpreting their findings. The authors need to address the following comments to improve the quality of the manuscript significantly. It is suggested to be accepted after revision.
Experimental design: The overall experimental design is reasonable
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: 1. Line 45-51: Personally suggest authors should highlight the high yield and low utilization rate of cotton straw in Xinjiang, China. The current description is inadequate.
2. It is suggested that the authors further describe the role and mechanism of biochar in improving farmland soil quality. Because different feedstock, addition rates and pyrolysis temperature may lead to different results.
3. Line 52-59: Authors need provide detailed background information in the introduction. The present presentation appears inadequate.
4. Line 60-71: The authors need to state the main purposes and hypothesis of this work in the introduction.
5. Line 107-109: Can the author supplement the pH value of biochar?
6. Soil moisture is an important factor affecting plant growth and nutrient availability. Biochar amendment may significantly influence the soil moisture due to its porous nature, therefore, it is necessary to discussed soil moisture after biochar addition.


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

Input:
Title: SOIL PROPERTIES, ROOT MORPHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO COTTON STALK BIOCHAR ADDITION IN TWO CONTINUOUS CROPPING COTTON FIELD SOILS FROM XINJIANG, CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I reviewed the manuscript number (#65250), titled: " Soil property and cotton root morphology/physiology response to biochar addition in two common soil types from Xinjiang, China"
In this study, the authors examined the effects of different biochar application rates on the cotton root growth traits and soil properties under two different soils.

1.	I suggest that the authors should change the title of the research.
2.	Abstract is not written as a technical because just mentioned increased or decreased, and not compared with both soils each other on the percentage basis.
3.	Parameters should be mentioned on a percentage basis.
4.	Introduction has not been written technical attractive connectivity is clear. The authors have not mentioned the specific issues related to the current research, and why the application of biochar amendment over other organic amendments under deserts soils.
5.	What is the novelty of current research for future aspects and gaps between previous studies done in the same areas?
6.	Introduction should be improved with technical reasons and behavior of root network under desert conditions.
7.	What are the objectives of current research?
8.	Authors have written from lines 88 to 90 (Its surface soil had low organic matter content, a non-obvious humus layer, high salt content, poor water-holding capacity, and low nutrient levels (Gu, Liu, et al., 2014). The basic properties of both soils are listed in Table 1.
9.	I could not find the salt contents in Table 1.
10.	 The properties of cotton stalk biochar have not been mentioned.
11.	How authors will be explained the changes in soil properties after biochar application?
12.	Cotton stalk-derived biochar or cotton straw?
13.	Use the same pattern and Cotton Stalk Biochar (CSB) is better than BC.
14.	Biochar level/ concentrations but the suitable word is the rate?
15.	Authors have not mentioned that significant P>0.05 OR P>0.01.
16.	Results are presented fine not good because the difference between both sandy soils is not presented on a percentage basis.
17.	Results should be explained properly and what is the decrease or increase percentage between both soils and crop stages.
18.	P observed by previous studies (Gao, Deluca & Cleveland, 2019; Song et al., 2020), suggesting great potential for crop-derived BC application as an additional P fertilizer (Kim et al., 2018).
19.	Follow one format that more than two authors use et al., while I found someplace three names.
20.	Discussion is not written fully technically because the author just mentioned previous pieces of literature.
21.	Why your results are different from both soils and explain your own results.
Experimental design: I reviewed the manuscript number (#65250), titled: " Soil property and cotton root morphology/physiology response to biochar addition in two common soil types from Xinjiang, China"
In this study, the authors examined the effects of different biochar application rates on the cotton root growth traits and soil properties under two different soils.

1.	I suggest that the authors should change the title of the research.
2.	Abstract is not written as a technical because just mentioned increased or decreased, and not compared with both soils each other on the percentage basis.
3.	Parameters should be mentioned on a percentage basis.
4.	Introduction has not been written technical attractive connectivity is clear. The authors have not mentioned the specific issues related to the current research, and why the application of biochar amendment over other organic amendments under deserts soils.
5.	What is the novelty of current research for future aspects and gaps between previous studies done in the same areas?
6.	Introduction should be improved with technical reasons and behavior of root network under desert conditions.
7.	What are the objectives of current research?
8.	Authors have written from lines 88 to 90 (Its surface soil had low organic matter content, a non-obvious humus layer, high salt content, poor water-holding capacity, and low nutrient levels (Gu, Liu, et al., 2014). The basic properties of both soils are listed in Table 1.
9.	I could not find the salt contents in Table 1.
10.	 The properties of cotton stalk biochar have not been mentioned.
11.	How authors will be explained the changes in soil properties after biochar application?
12.	Cotton stalk-derived biochar or cotton straw?
13.	Use the same pattern and Cotton Stalk Biochar (CSB) is better than BC.
14.	Biochar level/ concentrations but the suitable word is the rate?
15.	Authors have not mentioned that significant P>0.05 OR P>0.01.
16.	Results are presented fine not good because the difference between both sandy soils is not presented on a percentage basis.
17.	Results should be explained properly and what is the decrease or increase percentage between both soils and crop stages.
18.	P observed by previous studies (Gao, Deluca & Cleveland, 2019; Song et al., 2020), suggesting great potential for crop-derived BC application as an additional P fertilizer (Kim et al., 2018).
19.	Follow one format that more than two authors use et al., while I found someplace three names.
20.	Discussion is not written fully technically because the author just mentioned previous pieces of literature.
21.	Why your results are different from both soils and explain your own results.
Validity of the findings: I reviewed the manuscript number (#65250), titled: " Soil property and cotton root morphology/physiology response to biochar addition in two common soil types from Xinjiang, China"
In this study, the authors examined the effects of different biochar application rates on the cotton root growth traits and soil properties under two different soils.

1.	I suggest that the authors should change the title of the research.
2.	Abstract is not written as a technical because just mentioned increased or decreased, and not compared with both soils each other on the percentage basis.
3.	Parameters should be mentioned on a percentage basis.
4.	Introduction has not been written technical attractive connectivity is clear. The authors have not mentioned the specific issues related to the current research, and why the application of biochar amendment over other organic amendments under deserts soils.
5.	What is the novelty of current research for future aspects and gaps between previous studies done in the same areas?
6.	Introduction should be improved with technical reasons and behavior of root network under desert conditions.
7.	What are the objectives of current research?
8.	Authors have written from lines 88 to 90 (Its surface soil had low organic matter content, a non-obvious humus layer, high salt content, poor water-holding capacity, and low nutrient levels (Gu, Liu, et al., 2014). The basic properties of both soils are listed in Table 1.
9.	I could not find the salt contents in Table 1.
10.	 The properties of cotton stalk biochar have not been mentioned.
11.	How authors will be explained the changes in soil properties after biochar application?
12.	Cotton stalk-derived biochar or cotton straw?
13.	Use the same pattern and Cotton Stalk Biochar (CSB) is better than BC.
14.	Biochar level/ concentrations but the suitable word is the rate?
15.	Authors have not mentioned that significant P>0.05 OR P>0.01.
16.	Results are presented fine not good because the difference between both sandy soils is not presented on a percentage basis.
17.	Results should be explained properly and what is the decrease or increase percentage between both soils and crop stages.
18.	P observed by previous studies (Gao, Deluca & Cleveland, 2019; Song et al., 2020), suggesting great potential for crop-derived BC application as an additional P fertilizer (Kim et al., 2018).
19.	Follow one format that more than two authors use et al., while I found someplace three names.
20.	Discussion is not written fully technically because the author just mentioned previous pieces of literature.
21.	Why your results are different from both soils and explain your own results.
Additional comments: I reviewed the manuscript number (#65250), titled: " Soil property and cotton root morphology/physiology response to biochar addition in two common soil types from Xinjiang, China"
In this study, the authors examined the effects of different biochar application rates on the cotton root growth traits and soil properties under two different soils.

1.	I suggest that the authors should change the title of the research.
2.	Abstract is not written as a technical because just mentioned increased or decreased, and not compared with both soils each other on the percentage basis.
3.	Parameters should be mentioned on a percentage basis.
4.	Introduction has not been written technical attractive connectivity is clear. The authors have not mentioned the specific issues related to the current research, and why the application of biochar amendment over other organic amendments under deserts soils.
5.	What is the novelty of current research for future aspects and gaps between previous studies done in the same areas?
6.	Introduction should be improved with technical reasons and behavior of root network under desert conditions.
7.	What are the objectives of current research?
8.	Authors have written from lines 88 to 90 (Its surface soil had low organic matter content, a non-obvious humus layer, high salt content, poor water-holding capacity, and low nutrient levels (Gu, Liu, et al., 2014). The basic properties of both soils are listed in Table 1.
9.	I could not find the salt contents in Table 1.
10.	 The properties of cotton stalk biochar have not been mentioned.
11.	How authors will be explained the changes in soil properties after biochar application?
12.	Cotton stalk-derived biochar or cotton straw?
13.	Use the same pattern and Cotton Stalk Biochar (CSB) is better than BC.
14.	Biochar level/ concentrations but the suitable word is the rate?
15.	Authors have not mentioned that significant P>0.05 OR P>0.01.
16.	Results are presented fine not good because the difference between both sandy soils is not presented on a percentage basis.
17.	Results should be explained properly and what is the decrease or increase percentage between both soils and crop stages.
18.	P observed by previous studies (Gao, Deluca & Cleveland, 2019; Song et al., 2020), suggesting great potential for crop-derived BC application as an additional P fertilizer (Kim et al., 2018).
19.	Follow one format that more than two authors use et al., while I found someplace three names.
20.	Discussion is not written fully technically because the author just mentioned previous pieces of literature.
21.	Why your results are different from both soils and explain your own results.


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

Input:
Title: SOIL PROPERTIES, ROOT MORPHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO COTTON STALK BIOCHAR ADDITION IN TWO CONTINUOUS CROPPING COTTON FIELD SOILS FROM XINJIANG, CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The papers should be also revised by a professional translator or a native speaker
Experimental design: Reasonable
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Good 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: THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 AND CONTROL MEASURES ON PUBLIC HEALTH IN THAILAND, 2020
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: It is a nicely written paper with a novel research question. The discussed literature is time-bound and adequate.
Experimental design: Methods are well mentioned.
Validity of the findings: As the authors used already available secondary data from the other sources the quality could be compromised which has been mentioned in the limitations.
Additional comments: 1. As the authors only assessed the suicidal attempts and suicides, I request to revamp the whole draft replacing mental health with suicidal behavior.
2. Authors should mention that lockdown could be a confounding variable for the presentation of all events, in the limitation section.
3. While discussing the suicidal behavior, authors are requested to discuss the below-mentioned papers
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7871358/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33862016/


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 AND CONTROL MEASURES ON PUBLIC HEALTH IN THAILAND, 2020
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article provides detailed insight into the background and timeline of COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand and the early measures taken to prevent the outbreak from getting worse. However, I would like to recommend a few suggestions to make the article better in writing and understanding.
1. Check for grammar and addition of articles that modify the nouns such as "THE Coronavirus disease" in sentence 49. Also, check for sentences where lesser words can be used to communicate a fact e.g. sentence 60-61 could be re-written as "50 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were reported from Jan 13- March 9, most of which were foreign travellers". I would recommend a grammar check.
2. According to Tantrakarnapa & Bhopdhornangkul(2020), in their paper called "Challenging the spread of COVID-19 in Thailand", the first case was reported in Thailand on Jan 22, and according to Mahikul et al., (2021) in "Evaluating the Impact of Intervention Strategies on the First Wave and Predicting the Second Wave of COVID-19 in Thailand", Thailand was the first country after China to report a case of COVID-19 on January 12th. So I would recommend checking the timeline again to confirm the dates.
3. the introduction gives a wide account of timeline of COVID-19 in Thailand and start of interventions. The dates are elaborate with a lot of detail which is commendable. However I feel sentence 72-75 should come before 66-70. It would give the timeline more flow.
4. Generally the whole article  needs more consistency and flow to it and should have more words like "moreover", "furthermore" etc. to link one paragraph to another instead to giving a separate bullet point for each date and event.
5. the timeline is too long and exaggerated and I would recommend crunching it down to numbers and trends rather than whole long paragraphs.
Experimental design: 1.The sources used for data collection, while being the correct go to source, might not represent the whole country sample. e.g. the data collected for suicides and OPD admissions has been gathered from a hospital in Bangkok. This sample does not represent both urban and rural areas.
2. The data collection has been done from government databases which will only represent the reported cases and thus cannot be generalised to people who were asymptomatic to diseases or did not report the disease in hospitals or to the government.
3. The diseases in the categories of viral diseases and vector borne diseases have no background context before methodology and up until discussion part of the paper its not clear which diseases the author is talking about. e.g. The paper mentions respiratory and Gastrointestinal infections and only in discussion does the author mention "viral gastritis". Thus the mention and context of viral and vector borne diseases seems vague.
4. Mental health is measured just by suicides and attempt to suicide while the author does mention other mental health issues such as anxiety, depression and isolation due to quarantine to be more widespread during pandemic. This could be expanded upon more in the current paper.
5. The road accidents seems like an irrelevant variable to public health measures of COVID-19 pandemic,
Validity of the findings: The findings are derived from a reliable government source and seem accurate.
The conclusion and results of the study are well documented in terms of graphs, data and trends.
Additional comments: The article provides a deep insight into the COVID-19 conditions in Thailand and the measures taken. However, other than early intervention, other factors use are the same as other countries worldwide. The paper could have used a more comparative approach with other countries and focused more on aspects such as contact tracing, technological and vaccination interventions.
This would help to make the paper more informative.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 AND CONTROL MEASURES ON PUBLIC HEALTH IN THAILAND, 2020
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Nicely written paper
Experimental design: Methods are rigorous
Validity of the findings: Data are statistically sound
Additional comments: Thanks for addressing commets.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 AND CONTROL MEASURES ON PUBLIC HEALTH IN THAILAND, 2020
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The changes made by the author are satisfactory. The grammar and flow of the article are better and well written.
Experimental design: The experimental design and data collection is reported much better and is satisfactory.
Validity of the findings: The findings reported are valid and satisfactory.
Additional comments: All the changes made by the author according to recommendations are enough and satisfactory.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW PHYLOGENETIC DATA STANDARD FOR COMPUTABLE CLADE DEFINITIONS: THE PHYLOREFERENCE EXCHANGE FORMAT (PHYX)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors proposed a new data standard, the Phyx format, for computable clade definitions. IMO, the paper is too long and I would recommend the authors to move some of the tables and corresponding description to supplemental file and only highlight the most important and essential part of this format. This will make it more clear of the novelty and advantage of the format.

The authors developed phyx.js for the phyx format. However, I cannot find any tutorial for using it. It would be better to provide guidance in supplemental file as both the library and the format are new to everyone.

The author emphasize the advantage of this format is that the clade definition is computable. A case study to demonstrate the usage and possible application is useful especially for newly introduced format.


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

Input:
Title: A NEW PHYLOGENETIC DATA STANDARD FOR COMPUTABLE CLADE DEFINITIONS: THE PHYLOREFERENCE EXCHANGE FORMAT (PHYX)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The text is well-written. The subject is highly technical and dense, however, the authors wrote the text in a clear way. The manuscript provides plenty of references to solidify the claims made herein. All resources described in this manuscript are openly available to the community and can be used on any computer platform. The approach was described with sufficient detail and accuracy.
Experimental design: This manuscript does not aim at testing a particular hypothesis using experiments or meta-analyses. The manuscript provides a description of a bioinformatics resource. Evaluation of the experimental design does not apply.
Validity of the findings: The resource described by the authors has the potential to significantly improve the usability of the Tree of Life. The ability to reference clades given some pointers, such as two OTU names and a synapomorphy could change the way we manipulate the Tree of Life. More importantly, a resource like the one described here is the gateway to a fully tree-thinking paradigm in biology. Today, the first contact of students (and the general public) with biodiversity is associated with taxonomical rankings. Field guides, Wikipedia, TV shows, classic school books, all rely on taxonomic names to provide meaning and organization to biodiversity. Allowing for a simple and computer-readable organization of phylogenetic data can change that. In the future, we could be looking at a phylogenetic tree as the first result of an internet search for a taxon name. Students would learn to think using phylogeny and, as the authors mention, think about evolutionary groupings before thinking about character similarity. In summary, we have changed little with the introduction of bioinformatics. We still use static drawings (phylogenies in pdf files) and data tables (once in field notebooks and today in spreadsheet files---not very different). Storing and sharing phylogenies, taxon, and group definitions as well as data in a computer-readable way could open the avenue for more dynamic and interconnected research in evolutionary biology.
Additional comments: I read this manuscript from the perspective of a person who works with phylogenetic trees (either using trees from the literature or constructing new trees). At this moment, the most used workflow, as far as I know, is to store and share the phylogenies as newick or nexus files. When morphological, ecological, or behavioral data is available, this is stored as a data table (such as .csv) with the OTU names matching the ones in the newick or nexus files.

It seems to me that we (i.e., the community) could help by formatting/storing the phylogeny and associated data in a specific way. It would be helpful to add some directions aimed at the end-user (if that is the case). For example, when should we fill the phyx data fields? Should the researcher provide some file together with a publication or is this integrated into another website/software? Maybe a brief paragraph on the Introduction putting into context in which step the resource described here is to be used?

I could be confused and the resources described here are aimed specifically for software developers only. In that case, maybe this should be made more clear? I probably missed where this was explained.

Can this phylogenetic data standard deal with phylogenetic networks? What about soft and hard polytomies?

Specific comments:

Lines 8 to 9: Suggest to exclude “by far”. The word “most” already communicates how prevalent this is.
Lines 25 to 27: What about phylogenetic networks? Can an approach like this be useful when the phylogeny includes horizontal relationships due to hybridization, introgression, or horizontal gene transfer?
Line 30: “the wild” means “the literature”?
Lines 619 to 628: Traditionally, the Introduction is the place to present what has already been done in the field and previous papers/software/products that are related to the manuscript. I suggest moving the mention to these products to the Introduction.


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

Input:
Title: SHOULD THE FREQUENCY, SEVERITY, OR BOTH RESPONSE SCALES BE USED FOR MULTI-ITEM DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language use is clear, unambiguous, and professionally used throughout. Literature references are sufficient and context provided. Articles structure, figures, and tables are provided professionally. A relevant hypothesis has been phrased.
Experimental design: The primary research is within the Aims and Scope of the journal. The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap. Methods are described with sufficient detail and information to replicate the study. The statistical power is excellent.
Validity of the findings: This paper adds relevant basic knowledge to the OHRQoL community. Conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research question & limited to supporting results. I congratulate the authors on this extraordinary research.
Additional comments: However, some minor points have to be addressed. A major number of references is missing in the reference list (i.e. John 2018, Paulson 2021, Mittal 2019, Reissmann 2021). Please correct. Furthermore, the given number of participants is misleading. Out of 2,115 participants, only 873 were included. This should be the number presented in the abstract.


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: SHOULD THE FREQUENCY, SEVERITY, OR BOTH RESPONSE SCALES BE USED FOR MULTI-ITEM DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The study investigated the correlation between frequency and severity rating scales of the OIDP instrument. Results demonstrated that the correlation estimates for all OIDP items were greater than 0.50. The estimated value of the correlation between the two total scores of frequency and severity is 0.85, which increases to 0.96 in the latent variable model. The authors concluded that OIDP frequency and severity scores are highly correlated, indicating that it is feasible to use only frequency scales in research and clinical settings.
In general, this work is very interesting and proposes a more effective way to conduct OTDP questionnaire surveys. The perspective of the study is very clear.
However, I have some concerns.
1.The patient's age, gender, symptoms, and other characteristics may affect their preference and performance for frequency and severity scores. Are there any differences in the average raw scores between the frequency and severity rating scales?
2. The Discussion section is important for a paper. The author enumerated many studies using frequency scale and talked about the importance of frequency scale. The comparison of severity scale and frequency scale should also be discussed.
3. Several references in the article cannot be found in the list, such as John, 2018; Paulson et al., 2021, Reissmann, 2021, John et al., 2016 (In Line 293).
This is a secondary research study using data from another cross-sectional study (Simancas-Pallares et al., 2020). Even this reference is not listed.
4. There are some grammatical errors, typing errors throughout the text. And it should be revised carefully to avoid any type of grammar or syntactical mistakes.
5. There are also some details problems. Such as  *** Insert OIDP description Tables (Tables 1-3) here***.
Experimental design: Please see details in Basic reporting.
Validity of the findings: Please see details in Basic reporting.
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: SHOULD THE FREQUENCY, SEVERITY, OR BOTH RESPONSE SCALES BE USED FOR MULTI-ITEM DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have no further recommendations.
Experimental design: I have no further recommendations.
Validity of the findings: I have no further recommendations.
Additional comments: I have no further recommendations.


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: SHOULD THE FREQUENCY, SEVERITY, OR BOTH RESPONSE SCALES BE USED FOR MULTI-ITEM DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors made sufficient revisions according to the modification comments and clarified the concerns raised by this reviewer. All the changes made to answer the reviewers help to improve the paper. And I suggest that this paper be accepted.
Experimental design: Please see the Basic reporting.
Validity of the findings: Please see the Basic reporting.
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: NEW OBSERVATIONS ON TEST ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF JULLIENELLA FOETIDA SCHLUMBERGER, 1890, THE LARGEST SHALLOW-WATER AGGLUTINATED FORAMINIFER IN MODERN OCEANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a well written, clear and interesting paper on description and illustration of possibly one of the largest living foraminifer.

Literature is adequate.

structure is sound and all seems to be well organized.

I found the material and method section lacking and important detail such as the state of preservation of the specimens. were they preserved in ethanol? where they just dried in a container. this is important information to check weather or not the less dense material included into the test is truly cytoplasm or just some sort of mold because they were poorly dried.

I could not really see and hypothesis and results to confirm it, this is just a descriptive papers that deals with accurate description of a poorly known taxon within the foraminifera.
Experimental design: there is not really a big research question behind this study. perhaps the need to fully understand the external and internal structure of this taxon is the highest goal of the authors. indeed this is an important piece of science, but nothing that derives from some primary research questions. As simple as that: we have a fancy CT scan and we have such poorly known foraminifera. let's see what is inside and let's see what we can find out to better describe such shape and form.

there is a quite consistent part of clear speculation regarding the biomass of this foraminifer. The authors are well aware of this and clearly state that the entire discussion is based on large assumptions (lines 254-257), but they still want to give an approximated value. Perhaps it can be done in less lines.

I think that there is a major concern regarding resoluzion of the CT scan and the eventual outcoming results. It seems to me that resolution of the scan is 16micrometers (see lines 92), which is consistent with such large specimens to scan. few lines below they state that the CT is actually capable of going down to 1 micrometer but I do not really get if this is the case. it seems to me not. if 16um is the voxel sizes of the scan, then the entire discussion on internal structure is very blurr and misleading. with 16um resolution a large variety of structures are simply not visible and recognizable. see more comments on this line directly in the MS.

I could not find the scan data uploaded to the given website. that needs to be checked.
Validity of the findings: the resolution issue needs to be resolved to clearly state that some structures cannot be visualized or directly do not exist.

conclusions also confirms already published data regarding structures and internal organization.
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: NEW OBSERVATIONS ON TEST ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF JULLIENELLA FOETIDA SCHLUMBERGER, 1890, THE LARGEST SHALLOW-WATER AGGLUTINATED FORAMINIFER IN MODERN OCEANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Langer et al. is a welcome contribution that elucidates the morphology and systematics of this larger agglutinated foraminifer that is abundant along the continental shelf of West Africa.  I have always had my doubts about the systematic position of this genus, because it looks so much like a Xenophyophore.  The current research proves that Jullienella does not belong in this group, and moreover provides a much improved description of the test morphology, wall structure, and cytoplasmic structure of the genus.  The text of the paper is well-organised and well-written, and my comments and corrections are all very minor.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: I only wish to make a few minor points:  In the description of the genus given by Loeblich and Tappan (1987), the nature of the test perforations are mentioned: many large pores open into the interior but are constricted within the wall into smaller openings at the exterior”.  The current authors note that the surface it the test is covered by a thin veneer of small angular agglutinated particles.  The authors don’t mention any smaller openings, and no openings are visible in the SEM photos.  Maybe Loeblich & Tappan had specimens that were abraded?  The authors might with to clarify this point in the discussion (line 206).

Also, in the description of the test morphology, in line 125, the nature of the apertures are mentioned, but no illustrations of the natural apertures are given in the figures.  Only broken specimens are illustrated in edge view. Do the authors have any images of the apertures that can be added to the figures?
Additional comments: My additional comments are as follows:

Line
359, 526.  The publication date of the Loeblich & Tappan book is 1987, not 1988.
377.  Sadly, John Murray passed away on October 22, 2021.  The acknowledgement ought to be changed to “John Murray (Southampton)†”.
407. Please change “Wolfgring, S.” to “Wolfgring, E.”.  The author’s name is Erik.


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: NEW OBSERVATIONS ON TEST ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF JULLIENELLA FOETIDA SCHLUMBERGER, 1890, THE LARGEST SHALLOW-WATER AGGLUTINATED FORAMINIFER IN MODERN OCEANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: THis a well written report on the occurrence of Julieniella.
Experimental design: Yes, the topic is in line with the aims and scope of the journal in my opinion. The aim of the paer is well defined, i.e. reporting the morphology of a curious foraminifera and its implications.
Validity of the findings: THe aouthors provide a very detailed description of the tests of the foraminifera Jullienella. This probably is one of the larger foraminifera currently alive. The manuscript is well written. My main comments are points that are not totally clear to me, or should be included in the test.
1) It is inferred that Jullienella is a Schizamminidae. I am familiar with the deep oceanic arborescent taxa in that family. These are also agglutinated, but also have a very thick organic lining of the test wall. The sediment particles appear to stick in/to this organic lining. In the text I miss in the discussion why the dark grey matter is interpreted as cytoplasm and how the possibility of it being an organic lining is excluded. Foram cell plasma is not dense at all, and in most CT-scans is only seen as a very small light blop when low voltages are used. These scans were produced at 120 kV and I would doubt that cytoplasma would be visible in the reconstructions.
Further on this, in most foraminifera the cytoplasm is not filling the entire cell cavity.
2) It would be nice to segment the inner parts of the test. This would be a good illustration of the shape and structure of the test cavity, or is this what is meant with the 'inner surface of the test wall in reverse'?

small points:
line 69 great => large
line 94 delete: and a maximum resolution (voxel size) of 1 um (irrerelevant what the max resolution is, and technically resolution and voxel size are not the same)
line 139: clarify 'in reverse view'
line 218: foraminfera => foraminifera (I am always happy to see that I am not the only one making this typo)
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: 7,8-DIHYDROXYFLAVONE PROTECTS NEURONS AGAINST OXYGEN-GLUCOSE DEPRIVATION INDUCED APOPTOSIS AND ACTIVATES THE TRKB/AKT PATHWAY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In the current study, the authors evaluated the protective effect of 7,8-DHF on primary neurons triggered by OGD. The found that 7,8-DHF effectively protects neurons by activating BDNF/p-TrkB pathway , associated with anti-apoptotic Bcl2 escalation and pro-apoptotic BAX repression. Overall, this study is interesting and fits with previous observations. However, the study is too preliminary. Several key issues are needed to be clarified before acceptance for publication.
Experimental design: Major concerns:
1) in Fig 1, the authors need to show 7,8-DHF displays agonistic effect on p-TrkB/TrkB; p-Akt/Akt; p-MAPK/MAPK in primary neurons in the presence of OGD and absence of OGD.
2) in Fig2-4, the authors need to include Trk receptor inhibitor K252a, to see whether 7,8-DHF indeed to exert this protective role via TrkB receptor or other unknown pathway or effectors.
3) In Fig 2-4, the authors need to knock down TrkB receptor in primary neurons to see whether depletion of TrkB abolishes 7,8-DHF beneficial roles.

Minor concerns:
1) what p-TrkB antibody was employed? usually, a couple of different p-TrkB antibodies against p-706 or p-816 are necessary for demonstrating TrkB activation.
2) the inflammatory cytokines are need to be determined as the authors indicated BDNF exerts anti-inflammatory effect.
Validity of the findings: The quality fo p-TrkB needs to improve!

BDNF in the cell lysate or secreted in the media should be validated by ELISA kits
Additional comments: 7,8-DHF was not explored for a few decades. It was reported in 2010. It is merely 11 years. The description in the text is not accurate!


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: 7,8-DIHYDROXYFLAVONE PROTECTS NEURONS AGAINST OXYGEN-GLUCOSE DEPRIVATION INDUCED APOPTOSIS AND ACTIVATES THE TRKB/AKT PATHWAY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study, the authors aim to investigate the possible effects of 7,8-DHF treatment on neurons after OGD/R and explore the potential mechanisms. They concluded that 7,8-DHF protects neuron from OGD damage via activating BDNF-TrkB signaling pathway. In general, this study is well organized. The methods are easy to follow. However, this study can be improved on the following aspects.
1. Moderate improvement in grammar will be needed in this manuscript. And I see some dashes within words. For instance, line 239, “cor-tical” and line 254, “expo-sure”.
2. I don’t think the Hoechst staining method that the authors used can differentiate apoptotic cells. The authors indicate that they fixed the cells first and used Hoechst dye. 33342 Hoechst is a nuclear-specific dye that stains every nuclear it meets, just as DAPI. I see the authors cited one paper (Wan et al). However, even in the cited paper, Wan et al did not use Hoechst for apoptosis assay. They used Annexin/PI staining for cell apoptosis, and it was detected by FACS. I would strongly suggest the authors to do so. In addition, I did not see the described fragmented nuclei, condensed chromatin, etc, neither. The resolution and magnification of images shown are not sufficient to provide these details.
3. Another issue for this study is that the data provided is not sufficient to show 7,8-DHF rescues cells via BDNF-TrkB signaling pathway. I would suggest the authors to knockdown or knockout TrkB and see if 7,8-DHF is still be able to decrease cell apoptosis after OGD/R.
4. Furthermore, I see 7,8-DHF increases BDNF after OGD/R. Does 7,8-DHF also increase BDNF without OGD/R? From the western blot results in Figure 4, it is hard to tell whether enhanced TrkB phosphorylation is a result of 7,8-DHF directly or it is because 7,8-DHF increased BDNF, and that increase of BDNF enhanced TrkB phosphorylation. In addition, total TrkB blot is needed to confirm whether TrkB signaling is elevated after 7,8-DHF supplementation.
Experimental design: Please see details in Basic reporting.
Validity of the findings: Please see details in Basic reporting.
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: 7,8-DIHYDROXYFLAVONE PROTECTS NEURONS AGAINST OXYGEN-GLUCOSE DEPRIVATION INDUCED APOPTOSIS AND ACTIVATES THE TRKB/AKT PATHWAY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this version, the authors have addressed most part of my comments. They did better proof reading, reverified their apoptosis assay by FACS. Following are the comments:
1. I can still find typos. For instance, it is post-hoc test, not post-test.
2. I can understand that generating knockout cell line is time consuming. However, knockdown experiment won’t take long, and it is effective to show your target of interest has a role in the proposed mechanism directly. I would strongly suggest the authors to knockdown TrkB and see if 7,8-DHF still decreases apoptosis. The authors can leave the K-252a data in this study. After all, it would be better when the authors prove TrK is important in their study by both genomic and pharmaceutical approach. But keep in mind, that K-252a also inhibits PKC, PKA, Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent kinase type II, and phosphorylase kinase, respectively, with different IC50. When it inhibits TrK, the activity of other protein kinases will also be affected. Especially, the authors used K-252a at a high concentration (100 nM). That is more than 30 times higher than its IC50 for TrK. Is it a safe dose for cell?
3. In addition, the authors should also specify the statistical methods used in their figure legends. They only put one-way ANOVA in their figure legends. However, according to the Statistical analysis part, I learned they also used either Bonferroni or Dunnett’s test for multiple comparison. In this case, please add the information of post-hoc test in and specify which specific post-hoc test is used for each figure.
Experimental design: Additional experiments are needed.
Validity of the findings: Most of the findings are scientifically sound.
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: 7,8-DIHYDROXYFLAVONE PROTECTS NEURONS AGAINST OXYGEN-GLUCOSE DEPRIVATION INDUCED APOPTOSIS AND ACTIVATES THE TRKB/AKT PATHWAY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors addressed my concerns from last review. I have one suggestion for the authors. Neuron is usually picky on transfection reagents and methods. Lipofectamine 2000 is not the best option for neuron transfection. This has been reflected on their results in Figure 5. The siRNA knockdown efficiency is low. To optimize transfection efficiency, electroporation is recommended. In the future, I would suggest the authors to read more published papers and have a better knowledge of the cell they are going use, before they start experiments. If it is applicable, this manuscript can be considered for publication.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION AND SEXUAL DIMORPHISM OF THE ANTENNAL SENSILLA IN BACTERICERA GOBICA LOGINOVA (HEMIPTERA: PSYLLIDAE)—A SCANNING AND TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPIC STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript authors compared the morphological characterization of the antennal sensilla in Bactericera gobica Loginova using SEM and TEM. This study provides some useful information for the future studies on defining the olfactory function of psyllid antenna.
Experimental design: The experimental design is well supported the result and their analysis.
Validity of the findings: The authors found some differences between female and male antennal sensilla.
Additional comments: 1. The reason why the authors chose TEM？The difference between TEM and SEM should be added in discussion, to highlight the differences and characteristics between this paper and other studies.
2. Why did the authors only chose 3-day-old adults for the experiment?
3. In line 111, "the entire bodies of the B. gobica specimens were cleaned two times each in 70% ethanol using ultrasonic waves". Therefore, whether ultrasonic cleaning can damage the structure of antenna and affect the experimental results.
4. The whole experiment is only a description of morphology. If there is relevant functional verification in the follow-up experiment, the research may be more meaningful.
5. Manuscript format needs to be checked. For example, In Line116 and 367...


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: MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION AND SEXUAL DIMORPHISM OF THE ANTENNAL SENSILLA IN BACTERICERA GOBICA LOGINOVA (HEMIPTERA: PSYLLIDAE)—A SCANNING AND TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPIC STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a well-written manuscript.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined. This study is the first to report the morphology of B. gobica antennal sensilla with the aid of SEM and TEM.
Validity of the findings: The statistical analysis used is appropriate. The conclusions are well stated.
However, there is one issue to be addressed. Why the size (mean ± SE) of sensilla chaetica (ChS) presented in the Tables 4 and 5 were different. Please clarify it?
Additional comments: The title reflects the contents of the manuscript. All figures are easily readable with sufficient resolution.


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: MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION AND SEXUAL DIMORPHISM OF THE ANTENNAL SENSILLA IN BACTERICERA GOBICA LOGINOVA (HEMIPTERA: PSYLLIDAE)—A SCANNING AND TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPIC STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

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


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

Input:
Title: MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION AND SEXUAL DIMORPHISM OF THE ANTENNAL SENSILLA IN BACTERICERA GOBICA LOGINOVA (HEMIPTERA: PSYLLIDAE)—A SCANNING AND TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPIC STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION AND SEXUAL DIMORPHISM OF THE ANTENNAL SENSILLA IN BACTERICERA GOBICA LOGINOVA (HEMIPTERA: PSYLLIDAE)—A SCANNING AND TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPIC STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I went through the revised version of your manuscript, which has been greatly improved. The revised article meets the PeerJ criteria and can be accepted as is.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION OF NOVEL PROPHAGE REGIONS IN XENORHABDUS NEMATOPHILA GENOME AND GENE EXPRESSION ANALYSIS DURING PHAGE-LIKE PARTICLE INDUCTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Lefoulon and colleagues present an interesting study regarding the diversity of prophage regions in the Xenorhabdus nematophila genome and investigate the effect of SOS activating environmental cues that induce the expression of these prophages. The manuscript addresses an important aspect of many bacteria: their presence and impact on cell physiology and the environmental advantages of prophages.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and provides enough information regarding the prophages contained in this important organism. The finding is also relevant to the use of nematode-based plague control
Experimental design: Most of the experimental approaches used in this manuscript are sound and well designed. This reviewer finds one key experiment missing (see next section) and one important modification to Figure 4. Besides this, the manuscript is relevant, and the experimental design is well conducted and the data analysis.
Validity of the findings: This reviewer's only criticism regarding the manuscript is the lack of a very basic and simple experiment, plaque formation. This report contains important data, and I find it relevant. Still, any reader will question why authors are not doing phage dilutions and overlay platting so the reader can see that phage are present. Perhaps differences in plaque morphology, if the phages are forming clear or turbid plaques, may also suggest that the prophages identified may form plaques of different characteristics. This reviewer truly values the manuscript, but this is a key experiment to eliminate the readers' skepticism. Also, in Figure 4, do authors estimate the possible identity of the proteins based on molecular weight? I suggest adding at least the best estimate for a couple of proteins, indicating with an arrow, and proposing this in the figure legend.
Additional comments: This reviewer kindly requests that authors change the title of the manuscript; in my opinion, the work is extensive and complete, I strongly believe that the plaque formation assay is needed, but overall, the manuscript is a good characterization of the prophages found. I think the title may be 'Identification of novel prophage regions in Xenorhabdus nematophila genome and gene expression analysis during phage-like particle induction' by no means do I think this manuscript is preliminary. Perhaps the TEM analysis would be great to identify the phages and other experiments, but I think the data presented here is enough.
In the following lines, I provide some suggestions to the manuscript.
This is not mandatory, but in line 48-49, this reviewer somewhat disagrees with the statement included here, and many other authors have done regarding the energetic cost of prophages. Overall, the energy quote is somewhat neglectable since the genome does not overgrow with phages or remnants of them by insertion. In the end, the only negative effect is lysogenic particles that can become active. I kindly request the authors to reconsider this line.
Line 75, please remove an extra space in (respectively xnp1 and xbp1)
Line 99, space missing in 10 mL
Line 113, space missing un 750 µL
Line 116, missing letter, 10 min.
Line 117, space missing in 1 mL
Line 119, please correct to RNase-free water.
Line 143, space missing in 8 mL
Line 189, please remove the 'after' in this line.
In figure 3, the trend is the same in other independent experiments?
In line 270, please correct to E. coli
In line 273, please correct cox


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 NOVEL PROPHAGE REGIONS IN XENORHABDUS NEMATOPHILA GENOME AND GENE EXPRESSION ANALYSIS DURING PHAGE-LIKE PARTICLE INDUCTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The research was carried out with scientific rigor.
The structuring of the manuscript is adequate and all the raw data, so the supplementary material has access.
Experimental design: The methods used to achieve the objectives set out in the research are well described; however, there are some details that I will comment on shortly.
Validity of the findings: The suggested conclusions are supported by the results presented in the manuscript; however, I suggest you be more specific and concrete in this section, as I consider it to be too long.
Additional comments: The following corrections and suggestions are intended to improve the manuscript.

Line 38. mitomycin C
Line 40. ibidem.
Line 54. Xenorhabdus spp?.. complete with spp.
Line 55. Steinernema spp... ibidem.

As a suggestion, the content of lines 44-53 could be rearranged after line 61. This is in order to begin by introducing the reader to Xenorhabdus and its relationship to the host, and then place the text that refers to phages.

Line 72. Xenorhabdus spp.?
line 75. Complete the full name of X. bovienii
Line 79. mitomycin C
Line 79. X. bovienii  in italic fount.
Line 80. ...gene of the Xnp1 or Xbp1 region...    or is not in italic fount
Line 81-83. This part is a bit confusing, could you rewrite it?

Nothing is mentioned in the entire introduction about the rationale for choosing mitomycin C or UV light; What background is there on this?

Line 90. Xenorhabdus, what species?; nematophila?
Line 98. Xenorhabdus nematophila  --> X. namatophia. In the rest of the text, the full name is no longer necessary.
Line 106. I suggest putting some amount in the agitation in rpm.
Line 108. mitomicyn C ?
Line 112. 5000 rpm I suggest changing to  x g.
Line 113. Ibidem.
Line 116. 10 min?
Line 117. 13 000 rpm I suggest changing to x g.
Line. 118. Ibidem.
Lines 144-148. ibidem
Line 188. Complete mitomycin C
Line 189. Ibidem. And in the figure 3, the legend mitomycin C, also is important complete the name in the plots. And fig 5.
Lines 197-198. Dk --> kDa.  Are you referring to kilodaltons?         kDa is the correct

Change it, also in the gel image. Figure 4.

Line 210. In figure 5. legends with the GpA, Gpw and CI genes.

Line 233. Xenorhabdus spp?
Line. 302. X. nematophila
Line. 307. mitomicyn or mitomycin C?.   Complete the full name in the text.


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: QUANTIFICATION OF HUMAN ENTERIC VIRUSES AS ALTERNATIVE INDICATORS OF FECAL POLLUTION TO EVALUATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: There were no major issues with regard to basic reporting. I found the article clear for the most part with some grammatical errors in a few places:

Line 163-165 and Table 1: I believe you need to use the exact name of the primers and probes from the papers you got them. I don’t think you should change the name from what it is in the paper you cited. Some of the papers you cited have multiple primers and probes (and each primer and probe may have different efficiencies) for each organism and it would cause confusion on which primer or probe you are using.

Figures 2-4: What is the difference between a and b figures? Please explain more clearly in caption or titles.

Line 370: typo

Line 418: 'caution' instead of 'cautiousness'
Experimental design: I believe the article had several challenges when it comes to experimental design which would need to be fixed for publication. One of the main challenges is the lack of replication in the experimental design which makes the study less rigorous. Previous studies have looked at this topic using 5-10 samples whereas this study only used 2 samples per season. Replication is important in this field as concentrations are highly variable in wastewater samples. Hence, comparisons cannot be be accurately made without more replication. I also don't believe you can compare concentrations received from 2 different samples if you used different viral capture and extraction approaches. Especially if you have not determined the relative viral capture efficiencies associated with each approach. Further line by line comments are stated below:

Line 96: Was it an actual virus with genome and capsid that were spiked in or was it just the RNA genome? If it is only the RNA genome, this will only give you efficiency of collecting genomes not collecting viruses which have different sizes. Also it is an RNA target which might have different capture efficiency from a DNA target.

Line 97: Please clarify what exactly was not used in the study.

Line 114-116:  Isn’t it possible that there are microbes on the solid waste or debris that was filtered by the funnel? Did you quantify the viruses on those? If so, please report those concentrations.

Line 135-143: What is the typical recovery from this process? Maybe you could cite a paper that discusses this.

Line 228: why was this only done for raw sewage and not activated sludge and effluent? Wouldn’t there be different efficiencies in the different types of samples? the efficiency associated with capturing viruses from SC is also very important.

Figures 2-6: how are you making box plots with duplicate samples from each event and treatment? Did you take more than two samples? Or are you using the qPCR data as replicates? Could you clarify what exactly are the data points used to make these box plots. Could you also state the limit of detection.

Line 330-333: Could also be resolved with more replication.

Line 343-344: Because the concentration methods are different, I don’t believe this (comparing between SC and RS) is a good comparison. Differences could be due to differences in extraction and concentration recovery efficiencies. I suggest doing recovery efficiencies for SC and all other treatment samples.

Line 352-355: You would need more sampling replicates than you have to compare between seasons.

Line 394-403: I think you have too few points for these analyses. Maybe these can be cut.

Line 376: Were there any culturable assays measured in this study? I think another limitation that can be stated is the use of only molecular assays which do not measure viability and can cause overestimation of risk.
Validity of the findings: Since this study does not have good replication, it greatly impacts validity of findings and comparisons in the discussion. More comments below:

Line 227-229 and 303-307: This recovery efficiency is pretty low. Is it because you pre filtered your sample?

Line 325-329: From your results, concentrations of indicators decreased in AS but then increased in EF after. How did this happen? Especially for viruses that cannot grow in wastewater. If your reasoning is the hydraulic retention time, could you explain that more.

Line 330-333: Could also be resolved with more replication.

Line 356-359: Possibly because in that country, the winters aren’t as cold as Winnipeg hence less viral transmission.

Figure 4: The concentration of E. Coli being lower than crass and Pmmv is very strange. Is this the usually concentration for this particular E. coli marker in raw sewage? If so, I believe other markers would be better such as EC 23S (https://doi.org/10.1021/es302222b) or even the culturable marker.
Additional comments: I believe if more replication is done and viral capture efficiencies are evaluated for all samples, the paper can be accepted.


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: QUANTIFICATION OF HUMAN ENTERIC VIRUSES AS ALTERNATIVE INDICATORS OF FECAL POLLUTION TO EVALUATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for allowing me to review your manuscript “Quantitation of human enteric viruses as alternative indicators of fecal pollution to evaluate wastewater treatment processes”. This novel and well written article provides findings on important research into using human enteric viruses as indicators of contamination in wastewater.
I thought the manuscript used clear and professional language throughout. The introduction provided a clear outline of background information on usage of E.coli as a means of detection in wastewater but that only using E.coli excludes the possibility of the presence of other contaminants. Relevant prior literature and citations were included.
All figures were relevant to the content of the article and the raw data is easily accessible and all links such as those to the Github pages were accessible.  The results were directly related to the main hypothesis and self-contained in the article. The main conclusion that AdV, crAssphage and PMMV be used as viral indicators of water quality was supported in the results section.

I do I have some minor comments on language errors I found throughout the manuscript as well as a question about a figure:
-	Line 39-40: “This indicate that..” should be “indicated”
-	Line 370 – “The NESTP” Should be removed
-	The authors use the word “quantitated” throughout the manuscript. I would suggest using “quantified” instead.
-	Figure S2B – It seems to be off the page or at the very edge of the page. Ensure that this is reasonable for publication.
Experimental design: The design of the experiment seems robust with proper techniques utilized and proper citations for certain methods.
I did have a couple questions related to statistics  –
1. Using the Spearman rank correlation analysis was the average of all gene copies taken (average of event 1-4) and compared in this way? Do you think using this average value skewed results if there are differences between samples taken in the fall compared to winter?
2. Were any statistical tests carried out to compare samples collected in Fall vs Winter?
3. Line 207 – The authors discuss the statistical analysis. Please identify what you are actually comparing here and throughout the results. Are you comparing the average GCN of one sample type to another across each viruses? It was difficult to follow and determine what was statistically significant.
Validity of the findings: All the data is easily accessible, and findings are reliable. I thought the conclusion was well written and clearly outlined the end results. It is apparent that this work will benefit future work monitoring water quality.
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: QUANTIFICATION OF HUMAN ENTERIC VIRUSES AS ALTERNATIVE INDICATORS OF FECAL POLLUTION TO EVALUATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I just have a main challenge with 3 figures.

Figures 2-4: Are these replicates you used for making these box plots? please explain how you are making these box plots
Experimental design: Experimental design is still a challenge as you do not have replication and are making claims of significance. Specific comments below:

You did not report water quality parameters (pH, temperature, conductivity, etc) for all your samples, especially the liquid samples. These are needed to generalize results and for your comparisons between seasons. please report this data.

Previous studies have examined done this exact experiment and should be cited (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105452 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.02.042)

Line 413-416: what temperatures? can you report temps?

Line 409-412: I understand the challenge with getting replication but you cannot make some of these claims without replication especially when comparing significance between fall and winter seasons because you only had 2 samples for each season. you should just lump all four events together then make comparisons as you don't have enough samples to compare between events. Do not just change this for this section (NoV) but change for all other sections that you choose to make this comparison for
Validity of the findings: Your study is very crucial to developing each of these fecal indicators for water quality assessment. Please show this in your writing and state why this study is so novel compared to previous studies done in the past.
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: DEFENSE MECHANISM RESPONSES TO COVID-19
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study structure is confusing as I cannot know whether the authors want to report a narrative review or a systematic review. Moreover, the paper should be strengthened using the following comments.
1. The first paragraph in the Introduction should be strengthened using the following references to talk about the psychological distress during COVID-19 pandemic across different populations. Specifically, with the use of the evidence shown below, the authors can justify that the COVID-19 increases the psychological distress in different aspects for human being. Therefore, it is important to further investigate the behaviors that are usually triggered by the psychological distress.
Hasannia E, Mohammadzadeh F, Tavakolizadeh M, Davoudian N, Bay M. Assessment of the anxiety level and trust in information resources among iranian health-care workers during the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:163-8
Patel BR, Khanpara BG, Mehta PI, Patel KD, Marvania NP. Evaluation of perceived social stigma and burnout, among health-care workers working in covid-19 designated hospital of India: A cross-sectional study. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:156-62
Olashore AA, Akanni OO, Fela-Thomas AL, Khutsafalo K. The psychological impact of COVID-19 on health-care workers in African Countries: A systematic review. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:85-97
Sharma R, Bansal P, Chhabra M, Bansal C, Arora M. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2-associated perceived stress and anxiety among indian medical students: A cross-sectional study. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:98-104
Rajabimajd N, Alimoradi Z, Griffiths MD. Impact of COVID-19-related fear and anxiety on job attributes: A systematic review. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:51-5
Patil ST, Datar MC, Shetty JV, Naphade NM. “Psychological consequences and coping strategies of patients undergoing treatment for COVID-19 at a tertiary care hospital”: A qualitative study. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:62-8
2. The first paragraph in the Introduction should also mention different behaviors (e.g., vaccine uptake, protection behaviors) have been discussed in the literature (please see the references below). Therefore, it is important to understand the mechanisms that can explain the relationships between psychological distress and behaviors.
Alijanzadeh M, Harati T. The role of social capital in the implementation of social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:45-6
Ashraf A, Ali I, Ullah F. Domestic and gender-Based violence: Pakistan scenario amidst COVID-19. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:47-50
Rieger MO. Willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 might be systematically underestimated. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:81-3
Shirali GA, Rahimi Z, Araban M, Mohammadi MJ, Cheraghian B. Social-distancing compliance among pedestrians in Ahvaz, South-West Iran during the Covid-19 pandemic. Asian J Soc Health Behav 2021;4:131-6
3. At the end of the Introduction, the authors should clearly mention the review purpose and what the specific review can address to the literature gap.
4. I am not sure whether the authors should keep the Methodology section as it reads like that the authors did not do a systematic review.
5. If the authors did a narrative review, I would suggest the authors restructure their manuscript. They should firstly describe different types of defense mechanisms. Then, describe the defense mechanisms under COVID-19 pandemic. It seems that the authors have mixed the defense mechanism findings before the pandemic with those after the pandemic. This hinders the readability.
Experimental design: The authors claimed that this is a review article; however, it is unclear what type of review design it is. The authors have searched PubMed using keywords. However, the authors did not provide details regarding the search process and findings (e.g., how many papers have been found and how the authors screen the papers). It seems like a narrative review from all the sections; however, the Methodology section lets me think that the authors might conduct something like systematic review. However, the structures do not look like systematic review. Therefore, the study design is confusing.
Validity of the findings: The authors did not report any findings. They mentioned that they have conducted a review search; however, they did not mention what the findings are. Instead, they directly describe narrative things.
Additional comments: Nil.


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: DEFENSE MECHANISM RESPONSES TO COVID-19
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is, in summary, an interesting manuscript aimed to provide a theoretical explanation of the psychological defense mechanisms used to deal with the pandemic then discussing different categories of defense mechanisms and their roles in managing the impacts of psychological distress. The authors found that evidence of the role of adaptive defense mechanisms in protecting people from psychological distress due to stressful life events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic was reported.
Here, as follows, my main comments/suggestions.

First, as the authors, throughout the Introduction section, correctly reported that Covid-19 is associated with defense mechanisms which are significant predictors of several variables, including personality traits, identity status, and psychopathology, they might further stress the link between psychological distress related to covid-11 and negative clinical outcomes such as suicidal behavior. Importantly, despite the continuous advancement in neuroscience as well as in the knowledge of human behaviors pathophysiology, currently suicidal behavior represents a puzzling challenge. Thus, given the importance of this topic, i suggest to cite within the main text the article published in 2018 on Int J Mol Sci (PMID: 30249029).

Also, the authors might immediately present and discuss, in the first lines of the Discussion section, their most relevant study findings. Conversely they seem to focus redundantly on the most relevant aims/objectives of this study that should have been stressed elsewhere within the main text.

Importantly, the most relevant study limitations/shortcomings should be appropriately described as the the main caveats have been only partially reported.

Finally, what is the take-home message of this manuscript? While the authors reported that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a wide range of negative physical and mental impacts psychosocial interventions play a critical role in reducing the risk of developing psychiatric and personality disorders due to a crisis or pandemic, they should, in my opinion, provide the most relevant conclusive remarks of their paper more extensively. Specifically, what are the main implications of the present findings? Here, more information may be useful for the general readership.
Experimental design: The most relevant aims/objectives of this study should be provided for general readership not in the methodology but in the Introduction section.

Importantly, why the present search has been conducted only on PubMed and not in other scientific databases (e.g., Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Sciences, etc) needs to be extensively explained by the authors.
Validity of the findings: The central sections are long and difficult to follow for the readers; thus, the introduction of one or more Tables/Figures in order to summarize the main text could be useful.
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: DEFENSE MECHANISM RESPONSES TO COVID-19
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have improved the readability of the manuscript.
Experimental design: I would like the authors to do the following:
1. Line 132. Change the sentence " This article has two emphases of interest:" into " This article serves as a narrative review has two emphases of interest:"
2. Move Lines 132-138 "This article has two emphases of interest: (1) the assessment of the negative influences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological well-being and how the psychological distress, due to the pandemic, would affect and manipulate human’s psychological behavior; and (2) the importance of investigating different psychological defense mechanisms that play a critical role in mitigating psychological distress and utilizing mechanisms that promotes mental resilience, in addition, the evaluation of how adjustment mechanisms and coping strategies can protect peoples from internal and external threat." to the end of the Introduction (i.e., after the sentence of "Individuals’ responses to stressful situations might fall under one of the four categories of defense mechanisms; these responses can improve resilience and protect the ego from internal conflicts")
3. Line 127. Change "Survey methodology" into "Review methodology".
Validity of the findings: There is no problem here.
Additional comments: Nil.


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: DEFENSE MECHANISM RESPONSES TO COVID-19
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In the revised manuscript, the authors addressed most of the major comments raised by Reviewers improving both the main structure and quality of the present paper.
Experimental design: No specific comments.
Validity of the findings: No specific comments.
Additional comments: No further additional comments/suggestions.


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: CARBON ISOTOPE DISCRIMINATION AND THE FACTORS AFFECTING IT IN A SUMMER MAIZE FIELD UNDER DIFFERENT TILLAGE SYSTEMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The manuscript is written in clear language following the PeerJ guidelines but improvement in “Results” section is recommended.
2. Some of the recent articles relevant to their study were not included. Some of the references mentioned in the manuscript were missing from the main text body.
3. Figures and tables are okay. Minor corrections needed.
Details are mentioned in the PDF file.
Experimental design: In some of the methods section, details like the factors studied and the same size for each replicate experiment are missing
Validity of the findings: The authors have tested different parameters in their experiments but have not described them clearly in their results section. It is often misleading to the readers. Some of the methods are very brief and lack details about the experimental factors tested and the number of samples used for each experiment. Hence, the manuscript needs a proper revision before being considered for publishing.
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: CARBON ISOTOPE DISCRIMINATION AND THE FACTORS AFFECTING IT IN A SUMMER MAIZE FIELD UNDER DIFFERENT TILLAGE SYSTEMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This study explored the effects of tillage and straw management on carbon isotope discrimination, and the factors affecting carbon isotope during the summer maize crop growing season. The author reported that Δ13C can be used as a prediction index for summer maize yield. It is an interesting and novel study. However, as shown in Fig. 7, a significant correlation was observed between Δ13C and yield at the pre-filling stage, while non-significance at the post-filling stage. Thus, it is suggested that conclusions are rephrased to be more rigorous. Also, the reasons for Δ13C affecting yield should be in-deep discussed. The interaction effects of tillage and straw should be conducted in Table 1 and Figure 3-6.

Specific comments
Line 8-17, the background, objectives, and methods in abstract are redundant.
Line 14-15, upper (U), middle (M), and lower (L) layers. Detailed height.
Line 24-25, should be deleted.
Line 39, reference.
Line 43-46, the author has cleared the crop production in the NCP, but writes the details about maize again. This part should be combined with Line 31.
Line 59, “between WUE, Δ13C, and specific leaf area, the return of …” Confused.
Line 70-76, this part should be placed in M&M. Clear hypothesis was lacked.
Line 90-103, shorten it.
Line 108-120, details of tillage operation could be placed in Supporting Information or as a table.
Line 165-168, Normal distribution was required.
Results: Higher or lower should be based on significance.
Line 212 and 220, delete “at different layers”.
Line 238, the factors affecting it. Detailed factors should be written out.
Line 276-282, It is repeated with Introduction.
Line 286, carbon assimilation capacities affected Δ13C? Reference.
Line 290, “soil respiration emits large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere, resulting in a lower δ13C on the ground.” Difficult to understand.
Line 321, the relationship between five factors (i.e., SWC, LAI, air temperature, relative humidity, and CO2 concentration) and Δ13C should be discussed in depth. For example, Line 328 and 332, lack references, and explanation was weak.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Please see 1. Basic report
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: CARBON ISOTOPE DISCRIMINATION AND THE FACTORS AFFECTING IT IN A SUMMER MAIZE FIELD UNDER DIFFERENT TILLAGE SYSTEMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in clear language following the PeerJ guidelines. Raw data files were shared and all the comments made with respect to the literature references, tables and figures were addressed appropriately.
Experimental design: Authors have studied the effect of different factors on Δ13C of summer maize in two growing season. The research design used in the study is appropriate and the methods are clearly mentioned. Few revisions requested by the reviewer were properly addressed and corrections were made in the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: The study performed by the authors is a long experiment done during two growing seasons and includes several parameters. Authors have done their best to represent the data in a reader friendly manner. All the results were clearly presented and missing details in the figures and tables were incorporated in the revised version as requested by the reviewer.
Additional comments: All the corrections were incorporated and the manuscript is revised as per the reviewer's suggestion.


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: CARBON ISOTOPE DISCRIMINATION AND THE FACTORS AFFECTING IT IN A SUMMER MAIZE FIELD UNDER DIFFERENT TILLAGE SYSTEMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have adressed the concerns. I think it can be accepted after a minor revision. Please double check the whole MS that is free of errors, e.g. superscript and subscript, grammar problems.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment/
Additional comments: the subheading of 3.3: it's too long, please shorten it.