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: INCREASING METHANE (CH4) EMISSIONS AND ALTERING RHIZOSPHERE MICROBIAL DIVERSITY IN PADDY SOIL BY COMBINING CHINESE MILK VETCH AND RICE STRAW
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: General comment:
- The use of the English language is not completely adequate in several sentences throughout the text.
Specific comments:
-	line 14: add “emissions” after “the risk of greenhouse gases”
-	lines 14 and 15: substitute the original sentence with “…the presence of Chinese Vetch and the management of rice straw and nitrogen fertilization….”
-	lines 16 and 17: substitute the original sentence with “We investigated methane emissions, abundance and diversity of the microbial community in the rhizosphere after incorporation of …”
-	line 22: substitute “The incorporated” with “The soil incorporation”
-	the original sentence in line 25 and 26 should be inserted in line 23 and modified in: “Methane fluxes are also affected by nitrogen application.”
-	Lines 35 and 36: substitute the original sentence with: “one of the main topics studied by scientists working in the related fields worldwide”
-	Line 74: “in the present study” instead of “at the present study”
-	Line 98: substitute “in the growing season” with “during the growing season”
-	Lines 119 and 120: the original sentence should be substitute with “Fresh Chinese milk vetch at the time of incorporation showed the following characteristics:”
-	Line 124: Substitute “in” with “at”
-	Line 142: “as reported” is written twice, correct
-	Line 145: add “In order to…” at the beginning of the sentence
-	Line 217: substitute “in the heading…” with “at the heading…”
-	Lines 223-224: substitute the original sentence with “the soil bulk density in the treatment of Chinese milk vetch and straw incorporation decreased significantly…”
-	Line 250: “abundance” instead of “abundant”

General comment:
- Although showing the context, the introduction does not adequately present the state of the art for some of the issues related with the experiment. For instance, are there studies about NUE or methane emissions assessment after green manure and straw in rice systems? Which questions are still opened? In general, sentences seem to be not well connected one to another as it is difficult to follow the rationale which leads to the objectives.

Specific comments:
-	Lines 36 and 37: the sentence is not completely developed and its relevance is not clear, as breeding is not treated in this paper;
-	Lines 37 and 38: reformulate the sentence: “green manure and straw management represent agronomic strategies for…”

Specific comments on Tables and Figures:
-	Table 2 and Table 3: In my opinion, the results could be better visualized if data of each measured parameters would be in the same column.
-	Figure 2: You should add in the caption that reported data refer to the average of n measurements and specify the interval of measurements.
-	A full presentation of ANOVA results tables is needed.
Experimental design: General comments:
- One of the main problems is that, in line 91-92, it is stated that “The experiment was a split plot”, with “Straw returned to soil as main plot” and N levels as split plot. If this is the case, how NSV treatment is included in the design as it has only one level?

Specific comments:
-The objectives of the experiments are stated in Lines 74-77 of the paper. The sentence should be improved: green manure and rice straw effects are also evaluated, not only “fertilizers strategies”. For instance, you could substitute the original sentence, with the following one: “In the present study, we studied the effects of different fertilization and rice straw management in Chinese vetch-rice rotation after four years. We investigated (1) changes in soil properties, (2) rice yield and straw production, (3) methane emissions (dynamics?) during rice growth and (d) rhizosphere bacterial and fungal communities and their relationships with soil parameters.
- The methodologies utilized for soil properties characterization are not fully presented in the correspondent paragraph (lines 134-142). For instance, lack of methodology illustration for AOC, MBC and MBN listed in Table 2;
-	Lines 98 and 99: It is not clear that the total amount of N is the same in all the treatments but with a different fractionation between vetch and rice as reported in Table 1;
-	Lines 110 and 111: it is not clear why late rice management is illustrated. It is also included in the experiment?
-	Line 126: if it is correct, insert “After 4 year of treatment application,…”
Validity of the findings: General comment:
-	The results of the methane flux dynamics during rice growth should be presented and discussed in the paper (not only the average of the period)

Specific comment:
- Line 227: check the value of the reported yield
Additional comments: The paper needs a deep improvement especially for the points specified in the "general comments" of the above sections of the revision.


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

Input:
Title: DISTRIBUTION OF DEEP-WATER SCLERACTINIAN AND STYLASTERID CORALS ACROSS ABIOTIC ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENTS ON THREE SEAMOUNTS IN THE ANEGADA PASSAGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In general the paper is well written with clear English. Overall the references are fine. Lines 62-65 could have done with a few more references. Sufficient background and context are also given in the paper. The structure of the paper is also fine and figures / tables etc. seem appropriate.

In the introduction two main reasons are given for the study, the first is that the region studied the Anegada Passage, an important link in deep waters between the Atlantic and Caribbean, is poorly understood in terms of coral distribution. Producing better maps of these habitats as well as ground-truthing of habitat suitability modelling of coral distribution requires more local data from areas like this. This is a straightforward and worthy goal of the paper. The second goal seems to be to see if the corals are influenced by aragonite saturation levels in the surrounding waters. However, only one ROV transect appears to sample water undersaturated with aragonite so I am not convinced the sampling design is up to testing such as question. However, the aragonite saturation measurements are relevant in a wider context and should be retained in the paper. This will require a litte reframing in the introduction and discussion sections of the paper.
Experimental design: The paper fits within the scope of PeerJ. As stated above, however, whilst one of the research questions is well defined the other does not really stand up to the sampling that was achieved during the research expedition. Aragonite data are interesting with respect to coral data regardless, but they cannot be used to infer a limitation of cold-water corals below the aragonite saturation horizon in this case, not enough samples / transects at these depths. The investigation in general terms uses appropriate methods and these are well described and the study could be replicated.
Validity of the findings: The results presented here are novel in terms of providing coral occurrence data from seamounts in the Anageda Passage in the Caribbean. At a regional and global scale the data are incremental but as the study states such data are nonetheless important in filling in the picture of cold-water coral occurrence in the deep sea. The underlying data are provided. There are a few issues with the analyses.

L284-286 - There seems to be something wrong with the p-values here, may be switched around?
L 286-L288 The ANOSIM carried out here between water masses revealed significant differences in assemblages. However, surely these results are confounded by the fact that water mass varies by depth and depth is a well-known driver of coral distribution, and indeed the distribution of rariphotic and bathyal taxa in general. Is it possible to block for depth as an influencing factor in this analysis and undertake an ANOVA or ANCOVA? Or analyse the influence of depth and block for water mass.

L340 As I stated above sampling was so limited in waters unsaturated for aragonite (omega below 1) that it is difficult to draw conclusions about coral distribution with respect to the ASH depth in this study.

L384-386 If species are rarely observed then sampling may not pick them up from some seamounts.

The results and discussion should be modified to account for these comments.
Additional comments: Specific comments:

What are high profile seamounts, are they those with a high elevation or particularly steep seamounts?

L114 E/V Nautilus should be in italics.
L131 ROV Hercules should be in italics.

L157-158 I would be hesitant about saying that stylasterids are functionally similar to framework building corals in their ability to provide habitat for other species. May be so in terms of epizoic and endozoic species but not in terms of the wide variety of other habitats framework building coral provide such as rubble and sediment habitats. They are more like gorgonians which provide habitat in the deep sea in coral garden habitats.

L209 Only 22 observations of solitary corals but of course they are hard to see in an ROV video.

L372 Madracis myriaster should be in italics.

L446 Madrepora oculata is not a primary framework building coral but is a secondary framework forming coral.


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: DISTRIBUTION OF DEEP-WATER SCLERACTINIAN AND STYLASTERID CORALS ACROSS ABIOTIC ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENTS ON THREE SEAMOUNTS IN THE ANEGADA PASSAGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript from Auscavith et al. is a well written solid paper. It bring very good information about the structure of coral assemblages at the Anegada Passage. In particular the approach of consider the Omega Arg estimation associated with assemblage composition was very useful for future approaches on deep-sea distribution of coral assemblages. The literature references are well managed, with few recommendation to add. In general the structure of the article is good, as well as the figures, tables and raw data.
The data obtained and the statistical analyses are fine and include a nice discussion concerning their data output and the need of future research.
Experimental design: The scientific question of the study is well defined and the collected samples and data treatment are allows to address the question. Also the topic is very much relevant and contribute to information about Omega Arg in the Caribbean and their relation with coral composition. Technical and ethical standards seem fulfilled.
On the results section, small inconsistences were detected between a couple of p-values and the occurrence of significant differences (according the text). However, after revision of supplementary information the mistake was evident, and is noted on the pdf file.
Validity of the findings: Data and statistical analyses looks robust and ready for plublication after few amendments of some p-values. Conclusion are well stated, pertinent and supported by the findings.
There is some comments and suggestion on the discussion section in order to complement some comments. Other than that, look fine and interesting.
Additional comments: Congratulation of the paper, it is a very good jod. I look foward your publication. Please check some coments and corrections included in the manucrit file.


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: DISTRIBUTION OF DEEP-WATER SCLERACTINIAN AND STYLASTERID CORALS ACROSS ABIOTIC ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENTS ON THREE SEAMOUNTS IN THE ANEGADA PASSAGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: See annotated manuscript
Experimental design: See annotated manuscript
Validity of the findings: See annotated manuscript
Additional comments: See annotated manuscript


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

Input:
Title: DISTRIBUTION OF DEEP-WATER SCLERACTINIAN AND STYLASTERID CORALS ACROSS ABIOTIC ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENTS ON THREE SEAMOUNTS IN THE ANEGADA PASSAGE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper has been improved with revision including in terms of clarity, use of references and tidying up some minor errors. I note that the authors have missed the reference Stefanoudis et al (2019) with reference to the depth distribution of Madracis myriaster. I've added a note on the attached ms. I also highlight a sentence in the ms which I do not think is a reasonable one to write on the basis of the results.
Experimental design: This is fine. The authors have defended their analysis adequately in the rebuttal.
Validity of the findings: The adjustment of the language has clarified the findings with respect to the aragonite saturation horizon. Note the highlighted sentence referred to above.
Additional comments: The paper requires some further minor edits but I do not need to see it again. Many thanks for responding to my 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: DISTRIBUTION OF DEEP-WATER SCLERACTINIAN AND STYLASTERID CORALS ACROSS ABIOTIC ENVIRONMENTAL GRADIENTS ON THREE SEAMOUNTS IN THE ANEGADA PASSAGE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear Editor and authors,
Thanks for your invitation to review the updated version of the manuscript by Auscavitch and collaborators. This study presents an excellent contribution to the knowledge of deep-water corals (scleractinians and stylasterids) in the western Atlantic. The study provides a valuable baseline to understand environmental factors (omega-aragonite saturation values related to depth and temperature) that control the distribution of deep-sea corals in this biogeographic region. This information is critical to understand the future of deep-water fauna under different climate change scenarios.

My only additional comment is that the authors keep the use of Lophelia pertusa instead of the valid name Desmophyllum pertusum (Worms: http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1245747). I understand that Lophelia has been extensively used in the literature and the name is attached to the memory of a wide scientific community. However, I encourage the authors to follow the taxonomic nomenclature rules of ICZN as they have properly used in the identification of the material in their manuscript.

I strongly support the publication of this manuscript in this journal.
Experimental design: The authors have incorporated the changes requested by the reviewers. They also answered and justified their choice for the statistical tests used.
I acknowledge that the authors provided a list of the voucher specimens they used in their analyses.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript has a high standard in the amount of information provided, methods, quality of figures, and analyses that support their conclusions.
Additional comments: Congratulations to the authors. This study enhances our knowledge in the ecology of deep-sea corals in the region.

I look forward to your publication.


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

Input:
Title: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRON STATUS MARKERS AND INSULIN RESISTANCE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY IN SUBJECTS WITH EXCESS BODY WEIGHT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English language requires editing.
Experimental design: The methods need additions as several points have been addressed imprecisely.
Validity of the findings: In conclusions, the sentence “This approach has never been explored and may be useful both in research and in  clinical practice.” should be deleted or changed, there are quite many studies assessing iron metabolism in people with metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes
Additional comments: The study is interesting. Several aspects should be addressed.
Abstract
dysmetabolic iron?
Hemogram? Better – blood count?
“In conclusion, the observed results suggest that iron transport and storage are altered in subjects with overweight/obesity in connection with the characteristic feature of insulin resistance, and occurring without iron overload or deﬁciency” - this sentence is not clear, it might be divided in to sentences

English requires editing
Introduction.
P. 48. “Obesity is often the primary factor of metabolic syndrome” – obesity is associated with metabolic syndrome?
p. 56 “cardiovascular and type 2 56 diabetes (T2DM) patients” – patients with cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes
p. 57 “ type 1 diabetic patients”- patients with type 1 diabetes. Please use “patient first” language here and further
p. 91 m-2 – m2
p.91 - least another MetS factor – please state clearly, which factors and cut-offs did you use (exact cut-offs for waist circumference, blood pressure, HDL and triglycerides, and if usage of medications affecting HDL and tryglycerides were taken into account)
p. 91-92 – please state clearly, what were the exclusion criteria “diagnosis or medication for cardiometabolic pathologies” – this sentence is not informative;
p.98 – why only on 25 randomly selected subjects?
p. 108-109 -  “Food intake was assessed by three 24 h dietary recalls performed by telephone interviews (two in 109 working days and one in the weekend) several days before blood sampling”. Please state exactly how the interviews were performed, and how much time they took. Was the interview performed in the end of each day or the next morning? Did the participants fill in diet record diaries?
p. 116 – please indicate exact kit numbers for insulin and leptin, and add data on detection limits and concentrations used for standart curves of the kits.
Results.
Table 1.
Number of men and women is not indicated.
Table 2 – are the mean values obtained from analysis of 3 day record reported? Taking into account that the participants are overweight, the total energy consumption seems underestimated (e.g. for overweight women 1600 kkal should provide weight-loss)
Table 3 – how do you explain that insulin resistance marker HOMA-IR was actually in the normal range in these people with overweight and obesity?
calculating the metabolic syndrome score (number of positive criteria) and their comparison between the groups of different iron status might add to your results.
Discussion
p. 181  “parallelism” – please find another word
p.201 . It is a pity that HbA1c was not assessed in this study as it could add data on protein glycation in study subjects
p. 206  “Leptin was also elevated in these subjects with overweight/obesity, although it was no related with iron markers”- do the authors talk about the present study? How can they say that leptin was elevated, if they do not provide a normal range for leptin (and it does not exist to my knowledge). Please clarify this point.
Conclusion
Line 216 -  “all MetS factors were monitored” – there is no clear definition for factors and cut-offs monitored in the methods
The sentence “This approach has never been explored and may be useful both in research and in  clinical practice.” should be deleted or changed, there are quite many studies assessing iron metabolism in people with metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, e.g.


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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRON STATUS MARKERS AND INSULIN RESISTANCE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY IN SUBJECTS WITH EXCESS BODY WEIGHT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is not very sensitive way to assess normality and is no longer suggested. Instead D'Agostino-Pearson and Shapiro-Wilk normality tests are recommended, one of them or both.

In all 3 tables some data where median is showned are presented not corrrectly. Values in parentheses, as it follows from the description, are the range between 25% and 75% quartile, and range does mean distance from low to high value, but authors included just one nonsense number that is hard to interpret. Must be corrected.

Supplement data files didn't precise correspond to table numbers. The insulin values listed in Table 3 could not be obtained from the data presented in the Supplement.

In normal distribution, the + -1SD range is assumed to include 68% of the data set, +-2SD - appr. 95%. In case of Vitamin A it does mean that the values goes in minus (mean +-2SD=902.9+-1085.8). It is complete nonsense.

In all 3 table are lot of inconsistencies. Calculations must be completely revised.
Additional comments: The manuscript must be revised to eliminate any calculation and presentation errors
In general, presented in manuscript data seems to be  interesting, however despite the enough big number of investigated objects being 50 and huge parametric material gained, but with only 3 tables in the illustrative material it looks more like a short communication. A couple of representative graph figures of the acquired data would gave a better understanding of the presented 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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRON STATUS MARKERS AND INSULIN RESISTANCE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY IN SUBJECTS WITH EXCESS BODY WEIGHT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English language has been corrected, article structure is clear
Experimental design: Authors have clarified methodological aspects, the design and methods applied are now sufficiently explained
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed the points indicated in my previous review. I recommend the paper for publication


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

Input:
Title: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRON STATUS MARKERS AND INSULIN RESISTANCE: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY IN SUBJECTS WITH EXCESS BODY WEIGHT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: In general, authors have made changes suggested, but there still are some points to be improved, corrected.

However, I would ask you to show the IQR, the dispersion of median, not as a general range, but as the lower and upper bounds, and this should be done in all tables. Otherwise, this may mislead the exact interpretation of the results.

There are some discrepancies in p-values, comparing represented results (in manuscript tables) and calculated from provided raw Supplement data.

Detailed explanation can be fined in Attachment.
Additional comments: I recommend that the authors correct these inaccuracies before publishing.


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: AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT DURING TRIPLE-LOCKDOWN IN THE COASTAL CITY OF KANNUR, KERALA TO COMBAT COVID-19 TRANSMISSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Air quality improvement during triple lockdown in the coastal city of Kannur, Kerala to combat COVID-19 transmission
The authors have presented the analysis of the data of atmospheric trace gases, particulate matter, meteorological parameters collected at a site in Kannur, Kerala, during the 54 day phased lockdown imposed by the Government of India to prevent the spread of COVID-19 pandemic. All anthropogenic activities including transportation had come to a near halt during this period across India. As expected, there is considerable reduction in the concentrations of trace gases as well as particulate matter at the observational site at Kannur. It is interesting to know the effect of the reduced emissions on ozone chemistry. The ozone production depends on NO2/NO ratio and VOC/NOx ratio. The authors report 22 % increase in ozone production during triple lockdown. This is attributed to increase in VOC/NOx ratio in a limited VOC environment. However, NO2/NO ratio is not discussed. Reduced NO concentration reduces the titration of ozone. The ozone production is also influenced by the increase in solar radiation at ground level due to decrease in the aerosol concentrations. However, the role of reduced CO emission on ozone formation is not discussed in the present paper. Even though a rigorous quantitative analysis is not presented, the paper need to be considered for publication as the first information about the air quality under a special situation of the lockdown. However, following modifications/clarifications are suggested/sought:
In the document that I have downloaded, the commas are missing in many places in the entire paper.
The word lockdown or lock down-there is no uniformity.
English needs to be corrected: Few examples are:
1. Line no. 50:…………….were found to decrease……….(instead of) were found to be decrease………..
2. Line no. 64: …………caused a severe downturn…………….instead of severely downturn………..etc.
3. Line no. 102: ……..northern part of Kerala state…….(instead of) north of Kerala state…
4. Line no. 152: …..and hence enhanced the……..(instead of) hence improved the
Line nos. 143-145: ‘’NO2 was found to increase in daytime due to the enhanced emission of hydrocarbons from vehicles and industries and their photochemical reactions to produce O3 between 08:00 and 12:00 hours in pre-lockdown days.’’-How is NO2 increase related to enhanced emission of hydrocarbons?
Line nos. 157-159: How to claim that NOx emitted is less than VOC? Alternately, somewhere in the paper it is better to mention that the biogenic part of VOC emissions are likely to be unaffected by the lockdown. As mentioned in line nos. 159-161, there is a possibility of increase in the emission of biogenic VOCs due to related human activities. The authors may slightly elaborate on this.
Line nos. 174-175: This is also due to reduced O3 titration under reduced NO emissions. This aspect also may be mentioned.
General comment: During the triple lockdown, due to reduction in the aerosol concentrations, the solar radiation reaching the surface has increased leading to increase in the surface temperature and decrease in the humidity. CO emissions have also reduced considerably. Under this scenario, the OH/HO2 radical production is modified. What is the role of this in O3 production?
Line nos. 196-197: The sentence sits better in the previous paragraph.
Line nos. 222-224: “These peaks were associated with high traffic during the morning hours. During lockdown days the small peak observed in the morning was due to the absence of vehicles while the peak was absent in triple lockdown days due to the roads were deserted.” The sentence is not clear-is it-the presence of few vehicles?
Line nos. 229-239: BTEX being emitted by the industrial activities obviously shows decrease during the lockdown. The O3 increase during the triple lockdown is attributed by the authors to the biogenic VOCs. As suggested in the comment above, the authors need to mention that the biogenic VOC emissions are in principle not affected during the lockdown. On the contrary, there is a possibility that they have increased due to the related human activities as mentioned in the lines 159-161.
Line nos. 279-281: This conclusions may be further diluted.
Line nos. 283-286: The generalization of the results on the national level is not appropriate here. Either these sentences be dropped or moved with suitable modifications to the end after drawing conclusions of the present study.


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: AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT DURING TRIPLE-LOCKDOWN IN THE COASTAL CITY OF KANNUR, KERALA TO COMBAT COVID-19 TRANSMISSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting  paper.
Mainly data has been reported
Experimental design: 1.Detail  location of observations(name of site) conducted may be given

2. How frequently calibration of instruments are done
Validity of the findings: I presume the AQI is calculated as per Nasir and Brahmaich (2015). Since authors  are discussing indian data then it should be calculated as per CPCB standards with reference. This may be clarified.
Additional comments: Since there is a limited data to date and  to suggest there may be a positive association between long term exposure to ambient air pollutin and COVID-19 mortality.
The line 301 to 306 may be discussed more.
The restrictions have caused a considerable fall in level of air pollution.Thus preventing many avoidable deaths from non COVID-19 causes.


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: AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT DURING TRIPLE-LOCKDOWN IN THE COASTAL CITY OF KANNUR, KERALA TO COMBAT COVID-19 TRANSMISSION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Manuscript number (#49486)
Title: Air quality improvement during triple lockdown in the coastal city of Kannur, Kerala to combat COVID-19 transmission

General comment
This current study discussed the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on trace gases (O3, CO, NOx, BTEX and NH3) and particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) at Kannur city in the Kerala state of South India. The air pollution data have been analyzed along with meteorological parameters during the pre-lockdown, lockdown and triple lockdown period to see the change in the pollution levels for lockdown periods. The study highlights the mixing ratios of surface ozone were increased by ~22% during lockdown period by comparing the pre-lockdown period.  NO and NO2 concentrations were decreased by 90% and 144% respectively. PM10 and PM2.5 were declined significantly by 61% and 53% respectively. Additionally, the concentration of CO, VOCs, SO2, and NH3 were found to be decrease significantly from pre-lockdown days to triple lockdown days. Overall, the study explains the air quality was improved during lockdown periods at the study site.
Authors has appropriately presented their results and discussed comprehensively their findings. Hence, this paper is suitable for the publication in the present journal after the following comments / suggestions are incorporated.
Comments/Suggestions
In the Abstract:
More quantitative information should be included. No need to mention 34-36 lines in abstract section so please move these lines in introduction section.
Line 39-41: Please rewrite the sentence “trend in air pollution via monitoring the variations of surface Ozone Oxides of Nitrogen Carbon Monoxide Sulphur Dioxide Ammonia Volatile Organic Compounds Particulate Matters (PM10 and PM2.5) and meteorological parameters at the time of pre-lockdown lockdown and triple lockdown days at Kannur town in the Kerala state of South India.” and also use the comma after each species (for example: surface ozone, oxides of nitrogen…..)
Line 43: there is typo error. Use comma after “From pre-lockdown days to triple lockdown days” and also O from Ozone should be write in small letter.
Line 45: Please clearly explain about 144%.
Line 50: “The concentration of CO VOCs SO2 and NH3 were found to be decrease significantly”
Authors should be included the reduction values at least for few species (CO and SO2)

Keywords: Authors may change the trace pollutants by air pollutants (if possible)

In Introduction:
The introductory part needs to be redrafted. Few lines about the pollutants should be included. For example: sources and their roles. Specifically, BTEX role on health
Authors may cite latest references (for sources and their roles….. etc)

Liu et al., (2008), Volatile organic compound (VOC) measurements in the pearl river delta (PRD) region, China. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8 (2008), pp. 1531-1545, 10.5194/acp-8-1531-2008
Yadav et al., 2016. Role of long-range transport and local meteorology in seasonal variation of surface ozone and its precursors at an urban site in India. Atmospheric Research, 176-177, 96-107.
Yadav et al., 2019. The role of local meteorology on ambient particulate and gaseous species at an urban site of western India. Urban climate, 28, 100449.

Line 95-99: Rewrite the plan. First use full name of species in the introduction then use their abbreviations properly. Here some are abbreviated (surface O3 NO NO2 CO SO2 NH3 Volatile Organic compounds) which makes confusion.

In Observational site and experimental setup:

Please write 2-3 lines about the working details of each instrument.
Results and Discussion:
Line 123:  Authors may use latest reference along with Fishman and Crutzen 1978
For example:
Maji, et al., (2020), Winter VOCs and OVOCs measured with PTR-MS at an urban site of India: Role of emission sources, meteorology and photochemical sources. Environmental Pollution, 258, 113651.
Yadav, et al., (2019), Investigation of emission characteristics of NMVOCs over urban site of Western India. Environmental Pollution, (2252), 245-255,

Authors should be included only outcomes and their discussion in this section. The common part “Particulate matters (PM10 and PM2.5) are complex mixture of organic and inorganic substances found in the ambient air and they play a vital role on the radiation budget of the atmosphere via the scattering and absorption processes (Qu et al. 2017; Qu et al. 2018).” should move in the introduction section.
At few places’ sentences are bit long and merged so these long sentences should be broken into small sentences which will be helpful for readers.

There are some grammatical errors, so paper should be thoroughly proof read

Though authors have discussed their findings but still I feel more discussion.

The summary and conclusion section should be point-wise for better readability.


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: DNA FROM MOLLUSC SHELL: A VALUABLE AND UNDERUTILISED SUBSTRATE FOR GENETIC ANALYSES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper presents an intersting study on the use of New Zealand greenlip mussel for DNA-based studies. Different treatments to the shells were applied and the extractbale amounts of DNA as well as thri quality were assessed. The article is very clear and concise. It also nicely links the findings with results from previous studies. It might be useful to add specific hypotheses, but I also liked the clear presentation of only objectives as in the current version.
Experimental design: The article presents original research within the scope of the journal. The research question is well defined and the identified knowledge gap is being filled by a well-planned study design following high technical (e.g. verification of results in another laboratory) standards. All methods are described with sufficient detail and information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: There is no doubt about the validity of the findings which are in several cases similar to findings from a previous study on the use of mollusc shells for DNA based studies (Geist et al. 2008).
Additional comments: I would like to congratulate the authors for this nice paper. Based on my positive evaluation in the boxes on "basic reporting", "experimental design" and "validity of findings", I recommend publication of this study without the need for an additional round of review. Two really minor points that I spotted are that not all Figures are consistent in terms of reporting DNA concentrations (I think referring to ng per g shell material, possibly in addition to ng/DNA per µl) would be useful. Also, the "freshwater pearl oyster" mentioned a couple of times in the paper is actually a "freshwater pearl mussel".


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: DNA FROM MOLLUSC SHELL: A VALUABLE AND UNDERUTILISED SUBSTRATE FOR GENETIC ANALYSES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is very clearly written and presented with appropriate context and referencing provided.
Experimental design: Experimental design is thorough and authors are commended with the detail provided in this facet that has potential for this manuscript to become a primary source of literature for subsequent studies.
Validity of the findings: Findings are supported by robust statistical analysis and appropriate use of controls and other means of ensuring QA/QC
Additional comments: This manuscript in general is very well presented with clear findings that will potentially enable other researchers to utilise the methods. The main issue with this manuscript as presented is the format of the Discussion. This would require some significant rewriting as currently it is quite repetitive of the Results section and isn't a succinct summary and discussion of those results. This manuscript is primarily one of a method development and validation, therefore the Discussion can be relatively brief and be as a means to just reiterate briefly the overall findings and provide any further context to understanding those results. Then a section on applications for this methodology across other species of Molluscs is welcome. I would recommend a significant consolidation of this section.


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: DNA FROM MOLLUSC SHELL: A VALUABLE AND UNDERUTILISED SUBSTRATE FOR GENETIC ANALYSES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This is an interesting research contribution to our knowledge of utility of mollusc shell to ge-netic analyses. The authors conducted a series of experiments aimed at assessing the possibility of identifying taxa, differently preserved mollusc shells. They considered using this knowledge for examination of evolutionary processes or reconstruction of paleoenvironmental conditions. The authors compared fresh, aged, beach-cast and cooked mollusc shell. They used commer-cially important bivalve: New Zealand endemic greenshell mussel, Perna canaliculus. They used PCR and sequence analyses of mitochondrial and nuclear gene fragments.
The authors showed very high success rate for mitochondrial DNA amplification from shell tissue extracted thirteen months after the animal’s death. The authors showed that the extracting DNA method they used and developed was suitable for mollusk shell.
All methods are clearly and in detail described. Only in line 144-146, the description is not clear.

A very large part of the work is a description of the methodology and conducted experiments, even in discussions. I suggest shortening the descriptions of experiments particularly in Discussion, or moving them to the Results section.
Generally, the paper is well written and I will recommend it for publication


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

Input:
Title: DNA FROM MOLLUSC SHELL: A VALUABLE AND UNDERUTILISED SUBSTRATE FOR GENETIC ANALYSES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have now addressed all of the comments and the only small error I spotted is that "in" needs to be deleted at the end of the phrase in line 399.
Experimental design: No changes compared to previous version.
Validity of the findings: No change in assessment compared to previous assessment.
Additional comments: Thanks for carefully revising the paper. Please still correct the small error in l.399 where the word "in" needs to be deleted.


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: DNA FROM MOLLUSC SHELL: A VALUABLE AND UNDERUTILISED SUBSTRATE FOR GENETIC ANALYSES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

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: SEMANTIC PRIMING AND SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITY: REASSESSING THE LINK BETWEEN THOUGHT DISORDER AND ENHANCED SPREADING OF SEMANTIC ACTIVATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see attached PDF.
Experimental design: Please see attached PDF.
Validity of the findings: Please see attached PDF.
Additional comments: Please see attached PDF.


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: SEMANTIC PRIMING AND SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITY: REASSESSING THE LINK BETWEEN THOUGHT DISORDER AND ENHANCED SPREADING OF SEMANTIC ACTIVATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Writing style is generally comprehensible and professional, though expression is somewhat awkward or repetitive in places. Some of the presented information might gain clarity if the writing was more succinct, as sometimes the relevance of the information being presented is difficult to determine through the density of details provided.

Within the introduction, a strong statistical argument is made to account for the mixed findings from previous investigations of semantic priming and schizotypy. This argument is made from an appropriate coverage of the previous literature. Furthermore, the authors introduce some relevant theoretical and methodological concepts, such as semantic networks and the various ways in which the semantic priming paradigm can be manipulated to emphasise different aspects of the functioning of these networks. They also aptly consider the severity and spread of sampled thought and language disorder by comparing them the normative data in their discussion. Thus, relevant prior literature is referenced.

On the other hand, there are some gaps in the introduction, as well as in the discussion. Firstly, the only link made between schizophrenia and schizotypy was that there is a similarity between the personality traits of schizotypy and the symptoms of schizophrenia (lines 39-46). No clear theoretical argument was presented which alludes to the reasons why people with more disorganized schizotypal personalities should necessarily be expected to share similar semantic abnormalities as people with schizophrenia who demonstrate symptoms of thought and language disorder, if shared mechanisms are expected at all. Indeed, the authors avoid bringing in literature surrounding the semantic correlates of thought and language disorder reported in samples of people with schizophrenia (an area of research which is also arguably associated with mixed findings). Admittedly, direct comparisons between schizotypy and schizophrenia are beyond the scope of the study, but the rationale for exploring semantic function and schizotypy needs elaboration. A brief statement explicitly denoting the theoretical continuity between schizotypy traits and the symptoms of schizophrenia might therefore be helpful to round out the introduction. Meehl’s model of schizotaxia, schizotypy and schizophrenia is an example of one influential model that somewhat emphasises disorganization (Meehl, 1962, Am Psychol, v17, pp827; see also Lenzenweger, Maher & Manschreck, 2005, J Clin Psychol, v61, pp1295). The relationship between schizotypy and schizophrenia should not merely be implied because shared aetio-pathogenic mechanisms may not follow from shared phenomenology (Waters & Fernyhough, 2019, Schiz Bull, v45, pp717).

Secondly, although many methodological details were introduced comprehensively, the relevance of some of these details to the study rationale were not entirely clear. This was most prominent in relation to the schizotypy measures (lines 75-93), where the measurement scales and subscales were outlined without an explanation as the theoretical significance of these differences, or why both were required in the current study. The O-LIFE cognitive disorganization scale arguably has a broader granularity than the SPQ incoherent speech scale because it includes items that assess attention and concentration, decision-making, and social anxiety (Mason & Claridge, 2006, Schiz Res, v82, pp203). Hence, I imagine the SPQ is more closely aligned to the research aims of the study, which concerns thought disorder specifically. I note that the findings reported from one of the previous studies suggests a divergence between the semantic correlates of the SPQ and the Frankfurt Compliant Questionnaire (lines 115-119), and differences in the granularity of constructs being measured may be a factor in such differences. Furthermore, thought and language disorders are a heterogeneous group of symptoms that can be represented by a number of factors, including evidence of multidimensionality when self-reported thought disorder is measured in non-clinical samples using dedicated thought disorder questionnaires (Barrera et al., 2015, Int J Psychol and Psychological Therapy, v15, pp155). At the same time, some researchers have expressed scepticism towards the degree of cognitive disorganization that can be adequately assessed via self-report measures. Thus, in the discussion, how well the short-versions of the SPQ disorganization and OLIFE cognitive disorganization scales represent schizotypal thought and language disorder should be carefully considered.

Thirdly, given that the research aim specifically emphasises thought and language disorders/cognitive disorganization, the findings of previous semantic priming studies (lines 111-130) should be re-organized slightly to better distinguish the correlates of schizotypal thought and language traits from the correlates of schizotypy more generally. This reflects the findings of semantic research into schizophrenia, where the general correlates of schizophrenia have been suggested to differ somewhat from those specifically of thought disorder (e.g. Doughty & Done, 2009, Cog Neuropsychiatry, v14, pp473). Indeed, the cognitive correlates might differ amongst the different aspects of thought disorder (e.g. Bora et al., 2019, Schiz Res, v209, pp2).

The manuscript, as well as the accompanying tables and figures, conform broadly to the professional article structure, and the study is self-contained with results relevant to hypotheses.
Experimental design: The work fits within the scope of the journal. This is an empirical study of psychological processes. As such, the work is contained within the field of the Social Sciences, but with implications for the Health Sciences.

The rationale of the study was clear: to replicate previous semantic priming studies with more sensitive methodologies. This is a relevant and meaningful aim. However, given the heterogeneity in both findings and methodology that characterises research into the semantic mechanisms of schizophrenia and of schizotypy, it would also seem prudent to state clearly the theory driving the hypotheses in this study. Some minor tweaking is possible in this regard, particularly with regards to the precise theory guiding each hypothesis. For instance, Spitzer (1997, Schiz Bull, v23, pp29) proposed a model where thought disorder arises from an increased distance in the spreading of automatic semantic activation across nodes in a network. This increased spread of activation results in the facilitation of more distantly related concepts, which can be measures as an increased semantic priming effect for indirectly related words at low SOAs. The theory does not predict a relationship between thought disorder and the magnitude of direct semantic priming, or for priming at longer SOAs. The authors did hypothesise a reduction in the difference in semantic priming effect between directly and indirectly related lexical pairs with greater cognitive disorganization scores (lines 270-275), which would be predicted by Spitzer’s model. However, the direction of the influence of SOA upon the relationship between the semantic priming effect and cognitive disorganization scale scores was not specified, but was presented as a research question (lines 255-264). Which theory of thought disorder was used to predict differences at longer SOAs?

The work seems to have been conducted rigorously and reported in great detail. Translation of questionnaires was conducted with back-translation. Analysis decisions seem to have been carefully considered, explicitly stated, justified with references, and presented with a high degree of transparency. The results seem to be stable across the several methodological variants presented. Disorganization scores associated with reasonable internal consistencies. Reproducibility is facilitated through the use of automated software packages and libraries (presumably in R). Furthermore, many supplementary materials have been provided, such as a link to the translated questionnaires, documented analysis assumptions and inclusion of the raw data.
Validity of the findings: This study represents meaningful replication with a revised analysis approach in an effort to overcome the poor statistical power and sensitivity of previous studies. The discussion
and conclusions are conservative, but are linked to the original hypotheses and do not overextend from the data.

The authors acknowledge the between-group comparisons required for the directness condition (lines 445-450), and that these factors were accounted for (lines 452-453). However, the authors might consider clearly indicating to the readers in more general terms whether the two subsamples differed in their disorganization scores, and whether the directness condition was confounded by any between-group differences.

One of the weaknesses of the findings may arguably stem from the particular self-report measures used, for reasons mentioned already (see Basic Reporting section). The authors could consider discussing alternative and more objective measures of schizotypal thought and language traits for use in future research.
Additional comments: The authors present an interesting study in an area of research that is showing increased interest. The overall study rationale is admirable; to replicate the semantic priming paradigm that has been used previously to investigate schizotypy, but with more sensitive analytic methods in an effort to address the poor statistical power that has characterised these past studies. The methodological rigour is therefore a relative strength of the current study, although the theoretical context surrounding the study should be improved upon.


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: SEMANTIC PRIMING AND SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITY: REASSESSING THE LINK BETWEEN THOUGHT DISORDER AND ENHANCED SPREADING OF SEMANTIC ACTIVATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is the review of a (first) revision, so I am brief and write everything I have to say here:

The authors did a laudable task in integration my (and my peer reviewer's) comments, thank you. I am entirely satisfied with all the changes in the MS and the authors' rebuttal. In the case they renounced to elaborate on the suggestions (e.g. handedness / lateralization issue), they justify why, and I accept this. (I do not want to be picky, but just as a feedback to the authors: you need not lateralize stimuli to get lateralized processing: given the (claimed) fact that remote and indirect associations are more a domain of the right hemisphere, the issue of (handedness-associated) hemispheric language specialization remains relevant to research that compares direct and indirect priming and I would suggest in such cases to have a uniform right-handed population or two handedness groups of comparable size).

OK with me to keep the topic of false memories.

The only thing which could maybe be changed is one sentence in the Abstract: it now reads: "Our study provides no compelling evidence that schizotypal symptoms, specifically those associated with the cognitive disorganization dimension, are rooted in enhanced semantic processing, as reflected by increased spreading of semantic activation in priming tasks completed by sub-clinical individuals."
The phrase "enhanced semantic processing" is difficult to understand by somebody who îs naive to the topic of semantics and priming. So, it might be more clear to write:
"Our study provides no compelling evidence that schizotypal symptoms, specifically those associated with the cognitive disorganization dimension, are rooted in an
increased spreading of semantic activation in priming tasks."
(The "completed by sub-clinical individuals" can be omitted to have the sentence shorter and given the context of the Abstract).

Editor: please decide on yourself whether you think it might help readability.
Experimental design: (responded to in first round)
Validity of the findings: (responded to in first round)
Additional comments: The authors did a laudable task in integration my (and my peer reviewer's) comments, thank you. I am entirely satisfied with all the changes in the MS and the authors' rebuttal. In the case they renounced to elaborate on the suggestions (e.g. handedness / lateralization issue), they justify why, and I accept this. (I do not want to be picky, but just as a feedback to the authors: you need not lateralize stimuli to get lateralized processing: given the (claimed) fact that remote and indirect associations are more a domain of the right hemisphere, the issue of (handedness-associated) hemispheric language specialization remains relevant to research that compares direct and indirect priming and I would suggest in such cases to have a uniform right-handed population or two handedness groups of comparable size).

OK with me to keep the topic of false memories.

The only thing which could maybe be changed is one sentence in the Abstract: it now reads: "Our study provides no compelling evidence that schizotypal symptoms, specifically those associated with the cognitive disorganization dimension, are rooted in enhanced semantic processing, as reflected by increased spreading of semantic activation in priming tasks completed by sub-clinical individuals."
The phrase "enhanced semantic processing" is difficult to understand by somebody who îs naive to the topic of semantics and priming. So, it might be more clear to write:
"Our study provides no compelling evidence that schizotypal symptoms, specifically those associated with the cognitive disorganization dimension, are rooted in an
increased spreading of semantic activation in priming tasks."
(The "completed by sub-clinical individuals" can be omitted to have the sentence shorter and given the context of 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: SEMANTIC PRIMING AND SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITY: REASSESSING THE LINK BETWEEN THOUGHT DISORDER AND ENHANCED SPREADING OF SEMANTIC ACTIVATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The theoretical justification for the study has now been bolstered with the introduction of Meehl’s model to indicate (albeit briefly) the possible relationship between schizophrenia and schizotypy, and Spitzer’s model to indicate that thought disorder may arise from an increased distance of spreading of activation throughout semantic networks.  The consideration of additional limitations and important avenues for future research has also strengthened the discussion. My only remaining critiques pertain to 1) the clarity and concision of writing/expression in the introduction; and 2) the clarity of the depiction of the main findings relevant to the hypotheses in the results section. Accordingly, the introduction and results sections are probably excessive in length.

1. Although the overall writing style and tone is appropriate, the construction of sentences and linkages between sentences can be somewhat convoluted and repetitive in places, particularly in the first half of the introduction. The removal of statements such as "as we explain following" (line 274) and breaking down some of the lengthier sentences might help. In addition, a greater synthesis of the literature in some sections may help emphasise the arguments being made.  A specific example and suggestions are offered for your consideration:

Lines 169-192: This is one example where the writing is replete with details, making it harder to identify the specific contention and the relevant lines of evidence. The writing might be more succinct with a greater level of synthesis. Currently in this section, the findings and methodology from past research is described study-by-study. Instead, the previous findings could be further organized around the models for which they demonstrate support (or lack thereof). Spitzer argued that indirect priming best captured any increased spreading of semantic activation that might underpin thought disorder. Thus, the findings from indirect priming with a short SOA should be presented together. By contrast, direct priming presumably probes the degree of 'appropriate' semantic access, so the findings for direct priming should be presented separately.  In addition, other methodological variability is evident from the details provided here (e.g. comparing groups defined based on the median versus correlation analyses). These methodological details do not need to be reported until later, when the argument is made that the sensitivity of prior studies has been influenced their analysis approach. I note that the authors do provide a critical summative reflection of the literature (showing a good level of synthesis) later in the introduction (lines 209-224) – however, these paragraphs could be combined to make the work more concise.

2. The transparency and detail of the analysis conducted is respectable. All the required information is provided. However, given the length of the results section, some readers will feel overwhelmed when trying to extract the main findings. Many of the main effects are described in detail (e.g. lines 558-568 pertain to the influence of SOA on response times). Is it possible to emphasise the main findings that are relevant to the hypotheses (i.e. the interactions that include schizotypy) as opposed to the main effects for the various conditions alone? Similarly, Figures 2 and 3 clearly indicate the presence of semantic priming in the SPQ model, with Figure 3 showing an interaction between the magnitude of this priming and the directness of the semantic relationship. However, the modulation of these relationships with schizotypy is not depicted as clearly.
Line 638: What OLIFE subscale is being referred to here?

Other minor comments that are not crucial but the authors may wish to consider:

Line 66-76:  This addition of the possible positive aspects of schizotypy is an interesting and important idea. The current argument links thought disorder to semantic activation, and semantic activation to creativity. Is there any research that links thought disorder, particularly non-clinical trait-based thought disorder, with creativity?

Line 53: To avoid confusion, some distinction should be made here between the thought disorder described and specific disorders of thought content, such as delusions.

Lines 720: The authors acknowledge that their sample may not capture the full distribution of cognitive disorganization, though their sample indeed matched the normative sample for the OLIFE. This could be an opportunity to mention the broader continuum model of schizotypy and schizophrenia, and the possibility of using cross-diagnostic samples in the future to more faithfully capture the underlying processes (see Roche et al., 2015, Schiz Bull, v 41, pp 951 for information of the continuum of the prevalence and severity of thought disorder).

Lines 779-791: This is a nice discussion of the use of objective measures, particularly quantitative measures based on speech samples, as a potentially more sensitive assessment of schizotypal disorganization. The breadth of phenomena encompassed in the OLIFE measure of cognitive disorganization was also mentioned. The authors may want to note that clinical thought disorder itself is multidimensional and can be heterogeneous across individuals. It is not clear whether or not schizotypal thought disorder/cognitive disorgaization is similarly multidimensional and whether using a global disorganization score best captures the underlying construct.
Experimental design: Nothing further to add.
Validity of the findings: Raw data is accessible. Nothing further to add.
Additional comments: The work contained within the manuscript remains extensive and shows a high degree of transparency. The authors have implemented most of the suggested revisions - they have introduced more theory to ground their findings, and elaborated on some avenues for future research. Thus, I feel that the theoretical rationale for the study and validity of outcomes are now at an appropriate level. However, I have suggested some additional changes that are limited mostly to the introduction and results sections, and pertain mostly to the expression and organization of the information presented.


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: GLUCONOBACTER DOMINATES THE GUT MICROBIOME OF THE ASIAN PALM CIVET PARADOXURUS HERMAPHRODITUS THAT PRODUCES KOPI LUWAK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language should be improved in some sections to ensure the clarity of your text. Some examples are given in the different sections.

Figures:
fig 1 - the hierarchical clustering tree was generated based on bacterial genera? please clarify.
fig 2 - bacterial genus should be in italic. please check all the figures.
fig 5 - the membrane transport differences are not specified as the remaining ones. please do so.

Additional comments:
Line 49 - replace "fat" with " lipids"; carbohydrates (plural?)
line 50 - the mechanism responsible for the relatively higher levels of lipids and carbohydrates, and the lower levels of protein are known? if so please elaborate on this topic.
line 64 - specify the sulfur metabolic pathway
Experimental design: Some concerns can arise from the low number of samples (n=3). More data analysis should be performed to overcome this gap, such as perform prediction analysis regarding the functionality of gut microbiota (e.g. using PiCRUST  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2676).

Additional comments:
line 91 - high sensitivity DNA kit was used to quantified or assess the amplicons quality? please clarify.
line 95 - more information should be provided regarding VITCOMIC2
line 108 - why these agglomeration methods (neighbor-joining and kimura-2-parameter)? please clarify
line 127 - change "microbes" to "microorganisms"
line 149 - please rephrase
line 161 - specify what is the "a", "b", "c", and "d"
Validity of the findings: Some conclusions are excessive: line 211 - The KO terms of the civet cat Gluconobacter strains is not produced and consequently can not be analyzed, so, the only conclusion related to species identification can only be made based on 16S rRNA data, that only allows to state that the most probable species identification of the detected sequences is G. frateurii, G. japonicus, G. nephelii, or G. wancherniae. Thus, the exclusion of G. nephelii, or G. wancherniae as possible identification is not understandable.

More discussion: line 195 - it will be interesting to discuss the hierarchical tree produced using bacterial genera information to each host since birds and mammals gut microbiome seems to not differentiate (e.g. of studies reporting differences and non-differences https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1978 + https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.02901-19); a PCoA can be performed to better despite these differences and similarities.
line 289 - no real discussion is made regarding these pathways

Additional comments:
line 175 - indicate the relative abundance of each genus
line 146 - the comparison with the fecal microbiome of other animals was to determine the differentially detected genera in the civet cat and NOT to determine the predominant bacterial genus. please rectify.
line 181 - remove "were" and "our"
line 182 - remove the s in "sequences"
line 182 - add "analysis" at the end of the sentence.
line 191 - change "all species" to "bacterial abundance"
line 268 - add "these" between "that" and "two"
line 281 - change "indigestion" to "digestion" or "ingestion"
line 310 - separate "and" from "other"
line 313 - please state that the enrichment is not statistically significant
line 333 - change "which is the same group with" to "namely"
Additional comments: The English language should be improved in some sections to ensure the clarity of your text. More data analysis should be performed to overcome this gap, such as perform prediction analysis regarding the functionality of gut microbiota. Some conclusions are excessive and more discussion is needed.


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: GLUCONOBACTER DOMINATES THE GUT MICROBIOME OF THE ASIAN PALM CIVET PARADOXURUS HERMAPHRODITUS THAT PRODUCES KOPI LUWAK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English used is clear, the tables and figures are satisfactory. All other requirements in this section were met by the authors
Experimental design: Due to the comparing nature of civet gut microbiome to other animal gut microbiome, it will be appropriate to let it reflect in the title. Refer to line 252/253

Further, explain lines 57-59 for clarity on the statement of the problem.

The general methods are well written, however, there should be strict adherence to sections. such as methods should contain only methods, Results in only results and discussions only discussions (lines 60, 62-65, 277 etc).
Validity of the findings: The results reflect a critical evaluation of civet faeces microbiome.

The data DRA006640 is well deposited in DDBJ DRA database. It is mentioned the supplementary information by authors but not mentioned the manuscript. I expect to see such statements in methods
They are statistical sound.

The conclusions are sound and reflect the objective.

The article is generally good but needs the reorganisation into the appropriate sections.
Additional comments: This research is very interesting to read.


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: GLUCONOBACTER DOMINATES THE GUT MICROBIOME OF THE ASIAN PALM CIVET PARADOXURUS HERMAPHRODITUS THAT PRODUCES KOPI LUWAK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In the manuscript Yamada and coworkers nicely present their data obtained by 16S rRNA gene sequencing of palm civet cat feces and a bioinformatics downstream analysis. It was intended to determine the bacterial taxa that may influence fermentation processes of coffee beans in the gut of palm civet cats. These coffee beans collected from feces are used to brew coffee known as kopi luwak, one of the most expensive coffees in the world. The study revealed that Gluconobacter species appear to largely dominate in the gut microbiome of the Asian palm civet Paradoxurus hermaphroditus.
The manuscript is well written in clear, unambiguous, professional English language. The introduction provides the context and the relevant literature appear to be well referenced. The figures are mostly helpful and of sufficient quality. For Figures S1 and S2 no legend explaining the figure was present.

The availability of the Ion PGM sequencing raw data was not mentioned and the data appear to be not available.
Experimental design: The study presented reflects original primary research within aims and scope of the journal. The research questions are well defined, relevant and meaningful. It is outlined how the research fills an identified knowledge gap. The methods are described with sufficient details and information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: Finding Gluconobacter as dominating DNA is very surprising in view of the gut microbiomes of other animals and in view of the conditions typically anticipated in the gut. This is very likely related to the diet and the natural habitats of Gluconobacter species as mentioned by the authors, since Gluconobacter typically is present in blossoms and their fruits. However, the underlying DNA sequencing data appear to be not provided / publically available. Gluconobacter is strictly aerobic and would actually not be expected to actively contribute to fermentation processes in the gut. Therefore, the authors speculate that other microorganisms possibly are also involved in the fermentation of kopi luwak. It requires further studies to clarify this and the related metabolism potentially involved in the gut fermentation processes of kopi luwak beans. Therefore, the described results are very interesting and publication of the study is expected to stimulate further basic and applied research in this field in several ways.
Additional comments: This reviewer has only a few minor comments which are intended to improve the manuscript.

For the reader it would be interesting to read about the conditions at the coffee plantation and the potential diets of the Asian palm civet used in this study. Are there also any other fruits the animals could have ingested in relevant time when crossing or temporarily leaving the coffee plantation area? If not leaving the plantation area, what else than coffee fruits contribute to the diet? How long (days / hours) does it typically take after ingestion until the beans leave the gut?

As generally recognized in the literature and also mentioned by the authors, acetic acid bacteria including Gluconobacter are obligate aerobic microorganisms. Therefore, it appears to be difficult to accept Gluconobacter as an biologically active gut microorganism. However, in recent studies published by Kalantar-Zadeh ingestible sensors were developed and applied in human gut. Although the oxygen sensor capsule is not specific for oxygen (but oxidative agents), in a human study oxygen sensor-related data suggested an unexpected high content of oxygen in the small intestine after the stomach (PMID 30067289, Figure 1). This study could be included in the discussion by the authors, as this could probably also be the case in animals including Asian palm civet. The presence of higher oxygen concentrations in the intestine would increase the acceptance that Gluconobacter could be biologically active and contribute to fermentation of kopi luwak in a part of the civet cat gut. Furthermore, if not already applied or planned by the authors in further studies, mentioning Kalantar-Zadeh’s small ingestible sensors could promote its usage by other groups to study animal gut conditions in gut microbiome research (this reviewer is not related to Kalantar-Zadeh or his group etc.). This could be included in the discussion by mentioning the content of line 324 already in the paragraph in lines 281-284. Otherwise the important information that Gluconobacter species are obligate aerobic microorganisms will appear only at the very last to the readers that are not familiar with Gluconobacter.

L33 and L335
Which unique cell-motility gene has been identified by the authors in the Gluconobacter species? The name of the motility gene and the function of its protein should be mentioned in the manuscript. Furthermore, it should be explained why the authors consider this cell-motility gene to be unique.

L314
The wording “upregulation of the TCA cycle“ appears to be misleading in this context and should be modified.

Figures S1 and S2
Where are the legends of Figures S1 and S2 (not found)?

The Ion PGM sequencing raw data should be made publically available and this availability shoould be linked in the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: GLUCONOBACTER DOMINATES THE GUT MICROBIOME OF THE ASIAN PALM CIVET PARADOXURUS HERMAPHRODITUS THAT PRODUCES KOPI LUWAK
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English has been improved. Background information and figures have been improved.
The reviewer suggests the inclusion of the NMS analysis, present in the rebuttal letter, in the final manuscript (at least as a supplementary figure).
Experimental design: The authors addressed the experimental design concerns of the reviewer.
Validity of the findings: The authors addressed the speculation concerns of the reviewer.
Additional comments: The authors correctly addressed all reviewer concerns and modified the final manuscript accordingly. The addition of the NMS analysis in the final manuscript would support some of the authors' results/conclusions.


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: GLUCONOBACTER DOMINATES THE GUT MICROBIOME OF THE ASIAN PALM CIVET PARADOXURUS HERMAPHRODITUS THAT PRODUCES KOPI LUWAK
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English used is clear, the tables and figures are satisfactory.
All other requirements in this section were met by the authors
Experimental design: I agree to the explanation given to the suggestion on the article title.
Validity of the findings: Based on the standard methods used in the research, the results obtained are valid. The authors have now stated the availability of data and the database in the manuscript.
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: GLUCONOBACTER DOMINATES THE GUT MICROBIOME OF THE ASIAN PALM CIVET PARADOXURUS HERMAPHRODITUS THAT PRODUCES KOPI LUWAK
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
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: A SMARTPHONE MICROSCOPIC METHOD FOR RAPID SCREENING OF CLOTH FACEMASK FABRICS DURING PANDEMICS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Neupane et al report on the use of smartphones to image the pore size of different fabrics. The paper is essentially saying that one can use a camera to image a fabric, which is not at all novel. Their experimental design is also not new as the authors have previously reported their setup in this publication - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.09.035147v2.abstract
Experimental design: The paper lacks a number of details if anyone wants to do this experiment at home - the type of smartphone used; its camera specification; how was the scale determined; fabric details, etc.

The ball lens was a commercial product and something that is not typically present in a household. During this pandemic, it may be difficult to purchase such a lens quickly. Instead, it may be easier to get your hands on a high magnification camera. So I don't agree that a ball lens + camera is more useful than a camera on its own.
Validity of the findings: The authors mention that the bright regions in the optical micrographs are pores. Still, they do not report on the pore size of M12 and M16 (first layer). Their claim that they can be used as a face mask is hence not supported by evidence. My main criticism is that they are not reporting on the kinds of fabrics they have used. They are just labeling it as M1-16. How are the general public supposed to know which fabric to use?
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: A SMARTPHONE MICROSCOPIC METHOD FOR RAPID SCREENING OF CLOTH FACEMASK FABRICS DURING PANDEMICS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Introduction / need to add some background references (see below)
Line 83; …. include 'face seal' and use compliance. See Bard et al 2019 / https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31036302/

Line 86; From biosafety POV, the authors need to add precautionary advise for the user in handling potentially SARS-CoV-2 / pathogens contaminated mask - see link for citing WHO guidance on this file:///C:/Users/kijaz/Downloads/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.3-eng.pdf
Line 93; … virus filtering efficacy in the lab …. cite ref, suggest - Zhou et al 2018 / https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29707364/

Line 107; The authors should provide clear distinction between 'protection' and 'pathogens / particular aerosol filtration by mask materials' - so please replace 'protection' with 'filtration efficacy' throughout the manuscript.
Line 110; suggest replacing .'cheap' with 'affordable'
Experimental design: Material & methods

Line 121; provide reference for aluminum.
Validity of the findings: Conclusion

What's the pore-size (confirmed by filtration efficacy) using this 'smartphone microscopic'-screening method for mask-fabric selection the authors would recommend?
Additional comments: Given the ongoing SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic, this “smartphone microscope method for rapid screening of fabric quality” developed by the authors provide an affordable technique to select appropriate fabric for masks particularly in resource-challenged regions. I would recommend this be considered for publication pending the minor revisions highlighting the limitations of current work and recommendations for further investigations to validate the fabric-selection based on the technique developed here (e.g., filtration of pathogens / particulates / PM2.5 needs to be carried out).


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

Input:
Title: A SMARTPHONE MICROSCOPIC METHOD FOR RAPID SCREENING OF CLOTH FACEMASK FABRICS DURING PANDEMICS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Lines 89-90: please correct the citation format.
Lines 94-95: is 50-70% efficiency for virus?
Line 95: what does SMS stand for?
Lines 96-97: please remove ‘\’.

Line 127-128: can you provide relevant literature on the application/design of such smartphone microscope?
raw data is not shared.
Experimental design: Were there any replicates for masks or only one masks were tested? Can authors mention more about the type of fabrics used in type I and II? Are there any differences among the masks within type I or type II? It'd be helpful to provide the pictures or more details about these masks.
Line 146: ‘Around 5-10 images …’
What could be the differences in findings with only 5 images taken vs. 10 images taken? When multiple images were taken, were they taken from the same area of the mask?

Figure 1c. Please provide more details on (c) calibration grid and how it was used for calibration.
Validity of the findings: Instead of showing only representative figures, I suggest authors to include all figures (in supplementary section).
Table 1. Why is there missing data in M6 and M12, and M16 in Table 2?
Line 219: Authors mention about high thread packing for M6 and M12? It’ll be helpful to include such information for all the masks rather than only these two types.
Additional comments: Line 105: previous paragraph suggest that cloth facemasks work fairly good (50-70%) compared to other mask types (>85%). Won’t improper facial fit also be the problem for other type of masks?
Line 106: can you please mention the values for thread density and pore size?

Line 200: based on this study, authors mentioned the nominal protection but have cited the papers showing 50-70% efficiency in cloth facemasks. Please discuss.
Line 204: I’d recommend to include pictures of all masks and mention what is different about M6 and M12 so that it’ll be more useful for readers.


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

Input:
Title: A SMARTPHONE MICROSCOPIC METHOD FOR RAPID SCREENING OF CLOTH FACEMASK FABRICS DURING PANDEMICS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Suggested literature cited
Experimental design: Details added
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated
Additional comments: I think authors have addressed the comments.


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

Input:
Title: A SMARTPHONE MICROSCOPIC METHOD FOR RAPID SCREENING OF CLOTH FACEMASK FABRICS DURING PANDEMICS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Page 10, Lines 165-169: To avoid confusion, different terms should be used for equations (1) & (2)

Page 10, Line 174: Does ‘f’ in equation (3) refers to ‘f’ in equation (1) or (2)?
Experimental design: I suggest to move lines 178-187 to Materials and Methods.

Lines 208-209: I suggest to avoid redundancy (see lines 197-198)

I suggest to clearly mention if the authors used the same face mask for replications or different face mask (of same type) for replication.
Validity of the findings: I suggest improving results section and add major findings in this section. Several sentences in this section are likely to be more appropriate in method section.

Rather than saying, results are given in figures and tables, I suggest authors to mention their observations from these figures and tables.

In response, authors mentioned ‘For a particular mask, we found all the images very similar so we believe that our conclusion remains the same.’ Doesn’t it vary based on how tightly it is knitted and could it vary for the same cloth type?

Table 1. Authors were not able to show the pore size information for M6, M12, and M16 in the first version, but were able to show the information in the second version with contrast adjustment. I suggest to mention limitation due to this adjustment.
Additional comments: Page 4: Spelling error for author affiliations: ‘Institue’ and ‘Sceicnes’

Lines 229-230: Describing M6 mask would benefit the readers who will be looking for appropriate cloth type.

Lines 237-238: Does this mean that the results could greatly vary depending on the different samples of cloths studied under the microscope? Won’t it make difficult to make conclusion about which cloth type would be appropriate for protection?

I suggest to include the pictures of all masks in supplementary section.


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 NOVEL CURATION SYSTEM TO FACILITATE DATA INTEGRATION ACROSS REGIONAL CITIZEN SCIENCE SURVEY PROGRAMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See comments below
Experimental design: See comments below
Validity of the findings: See comments below
Additional comments: The concept of this manuscript is interesting and worthwhile. However, I would like to see less "it's difficult" and more consideration of standardizing the taxonomy of individual programs and assessment of other sources of bias from individual or integrated programs, especially those that are not implemented primarily by experts.

The title is quite long and indirect. Try something such as “Integration of taxonomic classifications across regional citizen science programs.”

Please double-space manuscripts even when not required by a given journal. Double-spaced manuscripts are much easier to read.

The abstract is rather long. Aim for no more than 300 words.

The manuscript as a whole is unnecessarily discursive. For example, no need to explain that Linnaeus developed binomial nomenclature (line 65).

Don’t conflate the concepts of extent and resolution. E.g., at line 60, “large scale” is accurate if the intent is large area and coarse resolution. If the intent is large area, then it’s “large extent.” See also line 104 and elsewhere.

line 63 and elsewhere. Reserve “we” for the authors.

The manuscript is missing an opportunity to underscore how critical voucher specimens are for accurate identifications, especially when observers do not have formal training in the taxonomic group and when population viability almost certainly will not be affected by taking vouchers, as is the case for virtually all butterfly species.

line 79. Change to “eBird; however,”

line 81. “scientific” is a more inclusive and honest descriptor than “academic”

line 89. Integrative modeling is not really new, and Zipkin and Saunders 2018 don’t claim that it’s new. Zipkin and Saunders wrote about integrated population models, and noted that variations of these models have been used since the early 1980s.

line 90. It’s not clear to me why false negatives are more problematic, at least with respect to scientific inferences, in abundance models than in occupancy models. Moreover, many formal surveys are not presence-only, but presence-absence.

line 137. Here and elsewhere, “species” is more accurate than “biodiversity.” Biodiversity includes all levels of life, e.g., genes to biomes, and encompasses structure, composition, and function

line 148. For a general audience, might be good to note that these are plants.

lines 148 and 155. Fair enough, but in every taxonomic group, there are taxa that simply are problematic taxonomically. In the United States, not only some Celastrina groups but many Speyeria and Papilio groups are good examples. Moreover, in every taxonomic group, there are taxa that are extremely difficult to identify. For instance, some butterflies can be identified definitively only by examination of genitalia.

line 154. Invertebrates, or just butterflies?

line 160. North America extends to the southern border of Panama. Is that what you mean, or do you mean “United States and Canada,” or even “United States”?

line 163. This seems like a straw man to me. Virtually all serious lepidopterists, including Warren, are now deferring to Pelham. Scott’s Butterflies of North America is an excellent reference in many ways, but it is not currently regarded as a taxonomic authority. It’s unfortunate if some program administrators and observers are unaware of that, but I think a strong case can be made for increasing awareness.

line 167. Now AOS (American Ornithological Society)

lines 159 and 173. I’m having some difficulty identifying the objective of the manuscript. Is it to standardize butterfly nomenclature? Is it to promote a particular method? One might disagree that retaining distinct local nomenclature is useful if the objective is to obtain rigorous data. At line 173, I would prefer “for testing the effectiveness.”

line 176. Habitat is a species-specific concept that should not be confused with vegetation type or land-cover type (either of which would be more accurate here)

lines 178-181. This is a cliché and not true. Butterflies indeed are highly responsive to environmental variability. As a result, their responses to any given environmental change are quite difficult to predict or interpret. Additionally, there is very little evidence that responses of butterflies to a given change can be used as a surrogate for responses of other taxonomic groups.

line 182. Keep in mind that there are two major objectives of citizen science. One is to engage the public, and butterflies probably are good for that. The other is to conduct rigorous science, and whether data collected by non-scientists are reliable for understanding butterfly ecology is unclear. This especially is the case when observers or programs are reluctant to take voucher specimens.

line 185. This might be phrased differently. “Fluctuations” may not be the best word. The abundance of a given species changes throughout the season as a result of, for example, staggered emergence, protandry, and multiple broods. Abundance trajectories may be difficult to project, but one knows that abundance will vary. And, of course, different species have different trajectories.

line 205. Legacy data can be reclassified.

line 221. Better to aim to test usefulness in a scientific manuscript than to aim to demonstrate usefulness.

line 234. Yes, it’s difficult. Demonstration of difficulty as an actual objective seems gratuitous.

line 242. Are these two paragraphs basically saying that four lists were considered authoritative? Simplify.

line 246. Again, Pelham generally is considered to be the authority.

line 249. What does “shows basic affinity to one of these authoritative treatments” mean? Does it or does it not match a given list? Becomes clearer several paragraphs down, but make it clear here.

line 269. What does “associate equal concepts among the authorities” mean?

lines 282-283. Local experts can be wrong.

lines 289-290. I don’t understand what this sentence is trying to convey.

line 300. What is an “aligned taxon concept”?

Do not use the text to describe tables. Instead, make a statement, then reference the table parenthetically.

line 318. Yes, of course it might require delving into the literature. Doesn’t seem like this even needs to me mentioned.

line 324. Orange County, Florida? Note the state given that it’s not a unique county name.

line 336. Again, here is an opportunity to develop targeted outreach to encourage programs to adopt the best scientific taxonomy available.

lines 336-338. If an intent of the manuscript is to build a template for other taxonomic groups, maybe this is relevant, albeit seems rather obvious. But otherwise seems tangential.

line 343. Again I’m puzzled by why “quantify the challenges” is a goal per se.

line 348. Why not go for the realistic case? I still am missing the point.

line 370. It simply may not be possible to address the very problematic groups. In all likelihood, considerable uncertainty will remain regardless. I don’t think that’s necessarily a deal-breaker for integrating monitoring data.

line 390. Data are plural.

line 398. “bi-directionally nonidentical” is not intuitive. Why coin a new term?

lines 438-440. So what are the steps necessary for operation within a program? Is the expectation that users have some type of knowledge that does not require much of an interface? I’m unclear on how one independently could evaluate the tool if it cannot stand alone.

line 442. Use of quotation marks implies that one does not actually mean the thing in quotation marks. Find a way to say what you mean in a straightforward manner.

The discussion seems primarily promotional. I think it would be a good place for addressing the extent to which taxonomic standardization resolves potential analytical biases. For example, to what extent might biases result from differences in sampling frequency, or misidentification of species, or anything else. Unquestionably taxonomic standardization matters, but there are many other sources of uncertainty to acknowledge and weight. Moreover, I would like to see a thoughtful discussion of the rationale for not requesting more compliance with systematics by individual programs, at least if those programs aim to integrate and to inform ecological understanding and conservation. For example, bird monitoring programs annually revise their lists on the basis of AOS updates. Why should butterfly monitoring programs not be encouraged to revise on the basis of Pelham updates?

Table 1. Indicate the standardization of geographic boundaries (presumably standardized before the table was compiled? If not, must be noted). If standardized, what are the boundaries.

Tables 3 and 4 do not seem necessary. Integrate some examples into the text instead.

Table 5 and Figures 2 and 3 are not formatted well. Don’t just cut and paste from an Excel spreadsheet (at least that’s what it looks like to me). Figure 3 isn’t a figure, it’s a table.

Figure 1. What is the source of this representation?

Figure 5 is not intuitive and likely can be deleted.