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

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

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I am very glad to see that the authors added new literature and did some recommended changes, as well as discussed all the points and had satisfying answers to each point. I am looking forward to seeing the work published, it has in my eyes a rather unconventional approach and therefore adds to the scientific body new aspects, which might inspire more research on fossils and larvae, which is much needed. Also, the authors drew more general conclusions about the change in the “morphospace” of this group, which is significant beyond the group of Diptera investigated.

A few comments:

-	It is always irritating to encounter new terminology from the one somebody is used to, this is just a human condition that we resist change. So reading crustacean terminology is unusual for a Dipterist, but the idea that Diptera are just a small part of the crustacean lineage is correct, like birds are dinosaurs etc. Of course many Ornithologist would be  confused when their books would use paleontological terminology and when the bird books would focus on skeletal characters instead of feathers (you can t see the bones in a flying bird, but there are there). And yes, it would help to unify the terminology, so I leave it to the authors to use whatever terminology they want to use, especially because they illustrated and explained sufficiently what they use and what they mean with these terms.
-	Of course, the authors are correct that “nobody can prove the phylogenetic background”. What can be done is to test a hypothesis, and with the help of concepts developed by Hennig and others, we can test the hypothesis of homology and falsify these according to Popper. It has been extremely challenging in the past (during efforts for the “Fly-tree”) to establish the homology between different types of Diptera larvae, therefore I am careful in establishing homologies over a much greater evolutionary distance. But this is not impossible and it is up to the authors to present their hypothesis.
-	Yes, there are things we “don’t see” but they “are there” like the intercalary segment. But my point was that we must differentiate between what we see and what is there. If there is only half the larva preserved as a fossil, it is reasonable to assume that this larva has the same number of segments as all the others, but for the description we must only mention what is there. In the discuss we can mention that this specimen likely had all the segments etc… So yes, the information needs to be included, but it should not be mixed with the “discussion/interpretation”.
-	The citation “The morphological terminology largely follows Borkent and Sinclair (2017).” Is still there and my point: “The authors mention they follow Borkent and Sinclair 2017 (another citation which is not in the references) for the terminology, but (if I am correct and this refers to the larval key in the Afrotropical manual) these terms are not included in this paper” was not addressed.
-	The Afrotropical Manual is cited as: “Hauser, Martin, Norman E. Woodley, and Diego A. Fachin. 2017. “Stratiomyidae (Soldier Flies).” In Manual of Afrotropical Diptera. Volume 2: Nematocerous Diptera and Lower Brachycera. 633-640, edited by Art Borkent and Bradley J. Sinclair, 2:919–79. Suricata 5. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.” But it is not edited by Art Borkent and it should be cited (according to the Manual itself) as: “Hauser, Martin, Norman E. Woodley, and Diego A. Fachin. 2017. “Stratiomyidae (Soldier Flies).” In: Kirk-Spriggs, A.H. & Sinclair, B.J. (eds), Manual of Afrotropical Diptera. Volume 2: Nematocerous Diptera and Lower Brachycera. Suricata 5. Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute. 919–79.
-	The reference of Woodley 2011 is not of significant importance for this paper. If the authors would have contacted me, I could have provided a PDF of this work.


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

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

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments.
Experimental design: No comments.
Validity of the findings: No comments.
Additional comments: No comments.


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

Input:
Title: A DIVERSE GLOBAL FUNGAL LIBRARY FOR DRUG DISCOVERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: With regard to the manuscript titled "A diverse global fungal library for drug discovery,"  I believe the work can be published. Building a fungal library with such a wide diversity and at a global level is very useful for high throughput screening of fungal secondary metabolites for bioactive compounds.

I am concerned about the taxonomic names of the fungi, please see my comment below.

I think the reference citations can be improved. For some, reason I felt the authors have few references cited.

Figure 2. The plates are all streaked like bacteria, but in Mycology that is not usually how the fungal transfers are performed  - just a suggestion

Figure 4b. Really cannot see anything clearly. Also, check the spelling of DMSO
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: Chemistry and Pharmacology testing

Comment #1: Citing references is needed for the information stated at lines 46-47, lines 47-48, and line 52.

Comment #2: Time units such as seconds, minutes, and hours can be abbreviated as sec, min, and h, respectively.

Comment #3: The picture used in figure 2, it is better to add a label on the left side of rows 1, 3, and 5 as fungal isolates and rows 2, 4, and 6 as host plants.

Comment #4: In figure 4, authors need to specify whether the anti-chronic myeloid leukemia screening was performed in triplicate, and what the error bars actually represent?

Comment #5: It is nice to see that crude extracts were obtained for the total 9,053 fungal strains. It would be good to study the chemical diversity of these extract samples and develop a dereplication method for the purpose of discovering novel bioactive leads.

Comment #6: Out of the 9, 053 crude fungal extracts, some were randomly selected for antimalarial, antimicrobial, and cytotoxic activities. The authors need to identify the method followed to randomly select these samples for screening. Were these samples representative for all different locations and climate conditions. Were there any extracts that were tested against more than one screening assay?

Comment # 7: The authors might in the future make a fraction library from their extracts and then perform bioassays. Each extract can undergo flash chromatography to make the fractions, which can then be tested against specific bioassays. Thus when activity is found it would help zoom into the compound peak that is responsible for the activity.

Mycology

Comment #1 Reference for ITS primers is not given.

Comment #2 The identification to species level with the ITS region might not necessarily be accurate. Especially for genera like Penicillium and Fusarium. Thus, please only use the genus name for identification. All Table 1 species names might not be accurate unless they are identical to the type sequence for ITS in GenBank. Thus the authors need to thoroughly check their identification to species-level with the ITS region just via BLAST search in NCBI GenBank with no consultation with type databases

Comment #3 Did the authors follow the Nagoya protocol for collections in Africa? I don't see any collaborator from an African University/institution?


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 DIVERSE GLOBAL FUNGAL LIBRARY FOR DRUG DISCOVERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Review of: A diverse global fungal library for drug discovery

The manuscript entitled “A diverse global fungal library for drug discovery” describes the construction of a fungal extract library containing extracts from 9053 fungal isolates obtained from approximately 5000 (soil and plant samples harvested in 36 regions in Africa, Asia, and North America. The biological activity of randomly selected extracts was evaluated in several assays including P. falciparum transmission to mosquitoes, antibacterial, and anti-chronic myeloid leukemia.

Generally, this manuscript is well written, however, some references are missing in the introduction section. Additionally, reference 9 is not appropriate for the text, it does talk about actinomycetes instead of ascomycetes.
If well, the isolation of 9053 fungal microorganisms is a titanic task, the information provided about the diversity in the chemistry and taxonomy of the isolates is not well presented in the submitted version; a phylogenetic tree must be ideal to represent the taxonomic distribution of the isolates. More importantly, the manuscript does not present any evidence of the chemistry of the isolates, possibly, an untargeted metabolomics study will provide such information. Ideally, the isolation and structure elucidation of some bioactive compounds is recommended.

Taking into account the above concerns and the suggestions marked in the attached pdf file, the manuscript must be accepted after major revisions.
Experimental design: The experimental design is appropriate.
Validity of the findings: Personally, I do believe the manuscript does not provide any new information.
Additional comments: Review of: A diverse global fungal library for drug discovery

The manuscript entitled “A diverse global fungal library for drug discovery” describes the construction of a fungal extract library containing extracts from 9053 fungal isolates obtained from approximately 5000 (soil and plant samples harvested in 36 regions in Africa, Asia, and North America. The biological activity of randomly selected extracts was evaluated in several assays including P. falciparum transmission to mosquitoes, antibacterial, and anti-chronic myeloid leukemia.

Generally, this manuscript is well written, however, some references are missing in the introduction section. Additionally, reference 9 is not appropriate for the text, it does talk about actinomycetes instead of ascomycetes.
If well, the isolation of 9053 fungal microorganisms is a titanic task, the information provided about the diversity in the chemistry and taxonomy of the isolates is not well presented in the submitted version; a phylogenetic tree must be ideal to represent the taxonomic distribution of the isolates. More importantly, the manuscript does not present any evidence of the chemistry of the isolates, possibly, an untargeted metabolomics study will provide such information. Ideally, the isolation and structure elucidation of some bioactive compounds is recommended.

Taking into account the above concerns and the suggestions marked in the attached pdf file, the manuscript must be accepted after major revisions.


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 DIVERSE GLOBAL FUNGAL LIBRARY FOR DRUG DISCOVERY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: N/A
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: N/A
Additional comments: The authors have addressed most of my comments, but some very minor issues remain.

1. "sp." should not be italicized throughout.
2. Please use the original citations for the ITS primers utilized.
3. The authors have oversimplified the making of the phylogenetic tree.  Please elaborate a bit.


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: DATA QUANTITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ITS SPATIAL BIAS FOR PREDICTIVE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODELLING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors present a really interesting paper comparing data quantity against spatial bias for predictive SDMs. With relevant findings and an innovative approach.

In general, the manuscript looks professional but some aspects can be improved:
L147-149. "Because our species were simulated... that species" needs a reference
L155, 160, 168, 171. Links and dates should be included in references list not in main text.
L337, 341, 347. Data and R code share should be included at the end of the document, usually links should appear at the end of the document or in the references.
Experimental design: In my opinion this research fits perfectly within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question is well defined, and the methodology is described with detail.
Validity of the findings: Results are cleared exposed, and can help to clarify the importance in data quantity and spatial bias in SDMs.
My only concern about the analysis is based in compare real data (only presences) with simulated data (presence/absence). I understand that some times it is not possible to obtain absence data. However, compare presences only against presence/absences should be done carefully. (just a reference to highlight the importance of the absences: The uncertain nature of absences and their importance in species distribution modelling
Lobo et al. 2010).
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: DATA QUANTITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ITS SPATIAL BIAS FOR PREDICTIVE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODELLING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The basic structure of the article is adequate and the language clear. I believe readability would improve if some sections were shorter (introduction, methods) and clearer (methods; i.e. a step by step description and framework needed).

The references in the introduction fail to mention any virtual species research developed from 2017-2020, which is a clear problem.
Experimental design: The experimental design is adequate, but as previously mentioned, I believe the methods section can be clearer in some points. The amount of information and different processes/calculations leads the reader to get a bit "lost", so some clarification is needed.
Validity of the findings: I believe the findings have validity but the novelty needs to be better explained. However, even if not novel, this study is important because it reinforces the results obtained in previous studies, using different sample sizes and sampling strategies.

All the relevant data is available, but I really believe the manuscript will be improved if a framework picture was available.
Additional comments: Abstract

Line 8: I would say that the approach is novel. See for example https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1574954118301614 or https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/2041-210X.12203
Line 10: can the authors clarify what “strong” means?

Introduction
The introduction is well written, and the story makes sense. However, I believe that this section appears to be longer than necessary. Additionally, I think that the literature review that is needed in the introduction to tell the story until the moment of the study is lacking, since none of the references (or very few) are older than 2017. This is particularly true with the references for virtual species studies.
Line 65: can the authors provide some examples please?
Lines 91-95: it is important to reference that this study was performed with virtual species
Line 132: I would be more careful with the last sentence, especially since the most recent citation for relevant literature seems to be from 2016. What is a real-world spatial sampling bias for the authors? Using presences from real species to sample simulated ones? Please clarify.

Methods
This section is detailed. However, I believe it is longer than needed. It starts on page 11 and goes until page 20. Therefore, it is easy to lose yourself among so many details and calculations. I advise the authors to start the section with a small description of the entire procedure (e.g. step 1, step 2…) and to add a figure explaining the framework. I also find a bit confusing why the need to use real species data if the species were artificially created and randomly sampled. Please see my comments below but this real-virtual species connection needs to be clarified.

Lines 169 – 173: Does the type of data that was available is important (e.g. some insects, some birds)? Or the real important fact is that this is real data?
Lines 178 – 183: what would be the pros and cons of using a simulated sampling procedure instead of using real species data, beyond the obvious additional workload?
Lines 209-210: a community with 34 species and another one with 1268 means that in total 1302 species were created? Was this made to use match the real sampled points of real and virtual species (e.g. real species 1 data is the presence data of virtual species 1)?  Not clear, so please clarify.
Additionally, why not create a large community and then just use a smaller subset of that data to test? Is it assumed that real data from insects and birds have different sampling bias? If this is true, what are the different bias? This is not very clear when describing the data.
Lines 221- 223: Ok, the authors reference my previous question here. But still not clear to me why they have different levels of sampling bias and how was this assessed?
Line 238 – 241: I apologize if I’m missing something but I don’t seem to understand why there is a need to associate sampled data from a virtual species to real bryophyte/dragonfly data, if the selection of points was done randomly? Perhaps clarify this please. I have the feeling that in these cases a framework picture is advisable.
Lines 261 – 267: If no pseudo-absences were used, does this mean that the authors used presence-absence data, or did the authors uses occupancy models?
Lines 268: if only 110 species were models, why create 1268 virtual species?
Line 295: Why AUC? I know this is a classic measure, but it can be misleading. Why not use MaxTSS or MaxKappa also, for example?

Results
Nothing really stands out in this section. All the relevant information/results are provided.
However, I really think that discussing results only based on AUC is not enough and other metrics should be used.

Discussion
This section is clear, and all the important points discussed. However, like in the introduction and methods, at some point I get the feeling that it is longer than needed and some structure required. I advise the authors to break this section in sub-sections wit clear themes being discussed in each.
I would like to see some recent references in this section also. I could only find one from 2018.
Line 412: Thibaud et al 2014 also used a random sampling approach. How different do the authors think this might be from the observed spatial sampling patterns
Line 431: can the authors suggest a way to “go around” the problem of using Ireland species and specific environmental variables, since virtual species were used?

Conclusions
I would like to see here some points giving ways forward in this area, or at least some points summarizing what is not advised to be done with SDMs, taking into account the research.


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

Input:
Title: DATA QUANTITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ITS SPATIAL BIAS FOR PREDICTIVE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION MODELLING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The structure of this manuscript was already good but I believe it was improved with the changes that the authors made to clarify some points. I also think that Fig.1 really helps the reader to have a better idea of the work developed. > Good Job!
Experimental design: Again, I believe only a few clarifications and edits were necessary regarding the explanation of the experimental design. The authors were receptive to my suggestions and edited some of the text to make it easier to understand, clarified some points that needed clarification and added some additional metrics to the analysis (i.e. Cohen's Kappa).

The division of the methods and Discussion sections in different steps was only a suggestion and by no means a demand (just a personal preference really). I'm happy with the changes made. Also, I feel the authors "pain" when fitting thousands of species and running simulations. > Well done
Validity of the findings: The authors clarified my point regarding the novelty of the work and I'm satisfied.
Additional comments: The authors did a good job addressing my comments and clarifying some doubts I had. I apologize to the authors if at times my questions seemed a bit strange but I think it helped to make the manuscript clearer at some crucial points.

I hope my comments were useful to the authors and that the final version of the manuscript is, in their minds, a better version of the initially submitted one. I certainly think it is.


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: ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION AT MRNA EDITING SITES IN SOFT-BODIED CEPHALOPODS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript by Moldovan et al. studies mRNA editing sites (A-to-I) using transcriptome data from 6 species of cephalopods. The authors provide conclusive evidence for positive selection of the A-to-G substitution at editing sites, consistent with a recent population genetic study in Drosophila and humans (Popitsch et al. 2020) that found similar signals. Intriguingly, this suggests that A-to-I editing could have conserved evolutionary roles in multiple diverged metazoan lineages.

The manuscript is excellently written, with a very clear overview of possible evolutionary models for RNA editing. They further suggest a novel and from my perspective very reasonable theoretical framework for the observed signals (i.e., non-functional editing sites enhancing the expressed genetic variability in species with low genetic diversity). The statistical and evolutionary analysis is done very thoughtfully and convincingly. I highly recommend acceptance of this study at PeerJ.

See some very minor suggestions below:

1) Line 204: EL is used here for the first time, write it out.

2) Line 454: It's not a very good choice to use "N" here as the number of possible editing-enhancing mutations since N is usually reserved for population size.

3) It would be interesting to quantitatively know to what degree the editing level can be predicted by sequence context and RNA structure, e.g. with multiple regression. This would make the biological significance of these factors clearer.

4) Line 154: It is difficult to understand R based on the description here (although after reading the results it became clearer). A numerical example could help (i.e. what are the numbers in the contingency table of the respective chi-square test). Same for the definitions below starting at line 172.


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

Input:
Title: ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION AT MRNA EDITING SITES IN SOFT-BODIED CEPHALOPODS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is clear and written well. The introduction clearly lays out the background with all the relevant and recent references. The fundamental purpose of A to I RNA editing, why and how it arose over the course of evolution still very much eludes us. This paper takes a novel approach, using well founded data from previous work, to try and further elucidate this process.  The use of Cephalopod editing data for such a study is clearly optimal due to the extensive editing events they exhibit. The additional discussion in the supplement regarding genetic assimilation and preadaptation is very important and adds to the background.
Experimental design: I am afraid that I lack the appropriate mathematical background to properly assess the calculations used, however they appear to be in order and are based on a well founded literature. That said, as mentioned above, this study is well within the scope and interest of PeerJ. The research question is well defined and the data used is quite appropriate. This manuscript certainly identifies and then fills in an important knowledge gap in this field.
Validity of the findings: The similarity of the findings from this study to those in Popitsch et al., 2020 for Drosophila and humans are quite encouraging, particularly from a broader evolutionary perspective.
The data is provided, here or cited from the previous studies used (particularly - Liscovitch-Brauer et al., 2017). The findings, particularly with regard to the sequence context and structure and their respective association with editing follows along a well studied line and expands on it. The notion that the vast number of non synonymous editing sites may in fact be conductive to the acceleration of the evolutionary process are fascinating and well worth pursuing with further work yet are of course at this stage speculative.
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: INVASION HISTORY OF HARMONIA AXYRIDIS (PALLAS, 1773) (COLEOPTERA: COCCINELLIDAE) IN ECUADOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment - everything is included in section 4
Experimental design: No comment - everything is included in section 4
Validity of the findings: No comment - everything is included in section 4
Additional comments: The paper presents interesting and apparently thorough information on the spread of a key invasive species in a country previously lacking clear information on the subject. It is well written and there is good use of literature. Whilst I recommend it for publication, the paper is very descriptive and feel that the Discussion lacks depth. With some additions as below I think it would be a much more valuable contribution to the extensive literature on this species. Although I have suggested quite a few changes, I think that most of them should be relatively easy to make. There are also quite a few minor (but rather careless) errors in referencing etc.

The Introduction is clear and concise, but a few changes are suggested:
Line 32 and check elsewhere: citations not in chronological order
L42 ‘…the Harlequin Ladybird’
L45 ‘control agent’
L45 the ‘becoming invasive’ statement should be after the ‘establishing’ and ‘expanding’ statements (i.e. re-order sentence)
L54 the Koch 2003 reference (cited elsewhere) is a useful addition to the statement about prey diversity
L62 there are many primary citations that could be used in addition to the Lucas 2012 book chapter, and some examples could be added – e.g. Ware & Majerus 2008 BioControl 53; Katsanis et al 2013 BioControl 58
L62 delete ‘a’ (‘exerting strong’)
L69 ‘In North and South America’ would be clearer
L69, 75 and check elsewhere: ‘Harmonia’ should be abbreviated
L72 ‘…of the country with H. axyridis…’
L74 delete ‘about’
L79 Were the surveys targeted just at H. axyridis, all ladybirds, or broader than that?
L121 clarify that you mean (I assume) 9 spots on each elytron, thus 19 overall.

Whilst the museum / literature searching look thorough, there is some detail missing about the field sampling in Materials & Methods. It appears from the results that only four direct field observations of the species were made. This is not a problem in itself, but there is no indication of the scope of the field sampling that led to these four records. Since the field sampling is mentioned first in this section it looks like a major part of the study, but the results suggest that this isn’t the case, so perhaps relegate this to the end, i.e. change the order of the various methods. If it was a substantial part of the study but the species was not found in most of the localities searched, this should be made clear.
When (range of months and years) and by whom were the surveys carried out? How were localities selected? (Presumably not random, so what criteria were used to select potential sites, e.g. based on particular habitat characteristics?) Indicate how many sites were searched and at how many was the species NOT found. This would provide greater context on how ubiquitous the species is.

Results
L133 ‘find’ (not ‘found’)
Third paragraph: could a table be constructed summarising the number of records found in each habitat type?
Are all the records of adults? Presumably some are larval / pupal records but I can’t see this indicated.
L145-6 this sentence is method
L148 ‘were’ not ‘are’
L149-151 it would be interesting to add the plant families for those unfamiliar with these species
L156 use past tense
L157 genus in full at start of sentence
L162-8 interesting but does this relate only to the local field sampling, or are some of the noted species associations from literature sources?

Discussion
There are some structural problems with the contents of this section:
The first paragraph either needs to be moved to Introduction, or put more in the context of this study, i.e. start with a reflection on the Ecuador results and then add the other information on Harmonia in the Americas to put the local situation in a wider context. At the moment this feels like the wrong way around. Splitting this long paragraph into one on South America and one on North would also improve it.
Really the second paragraph merely reports some example results and should therefore be moved to that section; or else add some interpretation, e.g. by comparing the habitats mentioned to those reported from other countries, etc.
So the third paragraph of the Discussion is what I would regard as the first part of the report that is proper discussion.
As alluded to earlier, it would be interesting to hear more on the habitats used by Harmonia in Ecuador, and a reflection on this here would be nice. It would be particularly good to hear a little more on the high altitude habitats where the ladybirds were found, e.g. what plant species they were on, etc, at such high altitudes.
L200 ‘All previously published…’?
L212 ‘record’ (not ‘recorded’)
L215 ‘in Ecuador’ duplicated
L218-9 Is this sentence referring to H. convergens or H. axyridis?
L224 The mention of spread rate in the UK comes from Brown et al 2008 BioControl 53 (listed incorrectly as a 2007 paper in the References)
L227-8 clumsy wording that should be tidied up
L237 Similar to above, the Poutsma 2007 paper I believe should be cited as 2008. (The official published version of the BioControl 53 Special Edition was 2008. Check elsewhere for this issue.)
L238 ‘habitats’ (plural)
L245 ‘arthropod’
L247-8 Can any example effects specific to the region be mentioned here?
L249-50 Like above, the statement about impacts on fruit is very general. Can this be put in the context of Ecuador? Is commercial fruit production important (and in regions where Harmonia is common?) and which main fruits are grown?
L250 Start a new paragraph after the part about fruit. Can you add something on how many endemic species are known in Ecuador, thus adding some conservation context?

References
Please thoroughly check this section, as there seem to be quite a few formatting inconsistencies, e.g. doi or DOI? Weblinks / DOIs sometimes given, sometimes not; missing volume and page numbers (e.g. L302)
References by the same first author do not seem to be in sensible order - e.g. see Koch; Brown. Please check elsewhere.
L298 ‘Brown PMJ’ (not ‘MJP’)
L420 ‘Hodek’ mis-spelt

Fig 1
Some extra labelling would be helpful on the map, e.g. some major cities added, or regions labelled. For Discussion: Is there any explanation why nearly all of the records are in the central band of the country, when seemingly the lower altitude areas to both E and W look superficially more suitable (to someone with little knowledge of the geography of Ecuador). This is mentioned in passing (L235) with brief discussion of Amazonian lowlands, but are these on both sides of the Andes? (With apologies if this is an ignorant question!) Are the major urban areas in this central band? A map showing broad habitat types (combined with altitude if appropriate, or shown on a second map) would be nice.


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: INVASION HISTORY OF HARMONIA AXYRIDIS (PALLAS, 1773) (COLEOPTERA: COCCINELLIDAE) IN ECUADOR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: It is a work on the invasion of Harmonia axyridis in Ecuador with relevant results on the introduction and establishment of the species.
Experimental design: The methodology used is adequate.
Validity of the findings: The authors did a good job of collecting data which resulted in an excellent article.
Additional comments: Some suggestions were made in the manuscript itself.


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: CUMULATIVE OXYGEN DEFICIT IS A NOVEL PREDICTOR FOR THE TIMING OF INVASIVE MECHANICAL VENTILATION IN COVID-19 PATIENTS WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: First of all, I must commend the authors for being able to use the data acquired during a, as I image very difficult time, to try and improve the care for patients.

The basic language is indeed clear and ambiguous. Nevertheless, I would advise the authors to let a native speaker review the text, as there are some issues with omitted 'a's and 'an's and other minor errors. I made some remarks on these in the text, but I imagine I missed a few.

The references are sufficient in number and relevance, and provide sufficient context.

The structure is professional in structure and figures. The raw data is shared.
Experimental design: The research falls within the aims and scope of the journal.

The research question is well defined, absolutely relevant and meaningful. The 'gap' or possible advance due to the research is indeed stated in the article.

The investigation is performed with high technical standard. There could be a certain concern with the ethical standard. In the Netherlands, a waiver has to have been even in case of retrospective research. It is stated in the article that this is not necessary in China. I can't check this. Moreover, the review boards approval is in Chinese, so I can't confirm it is indeed an approval. But I trust the authors on this.

The methods described are lacking some details on certain points. I put remarks in the document where this is the case.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are twofold.
About the (apparent) main conclusion, about COD, this is certainly linked to the original research question. Moreover, it is based on the results.

The secondary conclusion, is a bit more doubtful. The use of propensity score matching has some drawbacks. I can't completely interpret the statistical steps followed (mostly due to my own lack of technical knowledge in this field), but I'm not completely convinced that the statistical steps are acceptable. A review by a statistician is probably warranted.

More importantly: the second conclusion, IMV is probably (but not 'proven' due to not reaching statistically isignificance) useful for respiratory distress, seems a bit obvious. The proof that patients would have been better off with IMV can't be substantiated. After all, in the midst of a wave of Covid cases, it is very possible that there was overcrowding. So perhaps there was a lack of resources. So it is very possible that people were not put on IMV due to this, and not clinical conclusions that they did not need it.
I would advice to address this in the discussion.

But even more importantly: in my view, the part of propensity score matching actually undermines the biggest conclusion, namely, the use of COD as a 'biomarker', or trigger to start IMV. After all, the end conclusion in the article now, is basically that COD can be used as a predictor of mortality (if above the trigger value). Not so much that the trigger value is a reliable trigger to optimise the start of IMV.
Additional comments: I think it is a relevant article, and worth publishing.
But, like stated above, I think the article would profit from a distinction into the COD (perhaps a bit more about the background for the specifics chosen, advice on standardising time intervals for calculating the COD, etcetera) and the propensity score matching to try and prove the usefulness of IMV in COVID related ARDS. This last part actually weakens the concept of COD in my view.


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: CUMULATIVE OXYGEN DEFICIT IS A NOVEL PREDICTOR FOR THE TIMING OF INVASIVE MECHANICAL VENTILATION IN COVID-19 PATIENTS WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank yo very much for taking the time to do the research on this timely topic and preparing an above average paper. The paper is somewhat clear and relatively free from spelling and grammatical errors; however, could benefit from editing from a native language speaker. There are some corrections needed such as data are plural, datum is singular. Please consider including a sentence or two describing the alluvium plot and a reference. Reference are current.
Experimental design: The authors discuss comorbidities, but in this reviewer's opinion the inclusion of Elixhauser's comorbidity index would substantially improve this work. [The comorbidity index can be used to do this (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/comorbidity/comorbidity.pdf).]

Please state how normality was tested and include mean(SD) and median(IQR) for all variables.

Please refer to "Skewed (non-normal) data " as "Non-normally distributed data"

The "rank-sum" tests is correctly referred to as the "Wilcoxon Rank Sum test".

"Chi-square " should not be capitalized

On what basis were variables included for adjustment?

Please state the version of R, not R Studio used for analysis.

Based on the ASA's stand on statistical significance, please do not dichotomize statistical significance (see Wasserstein, Schirm, & Lazar, 2019)
Validity of the findings: The validity of the findings of the study appropriate for the study as are the conclusions. However the manuscript would be strengthened by the inclusion of Elixhauser's comorbidity index and perhaps even a subanalysis using the Charleson-Deyo comorbidity index.
Additional comments: None.


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

Input:
Title: CUMULATIVE OXYGEN DEFICIT IS A NOVEL PREDICTOR FOR THE TIMING OF INVASIVE MECHANICAL VENTILATION IN COVID-19 PATIENTS WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No further comments
Experimental design: No further comments
Validity of the findings: No further comments
Additional comments: I found two typos (I think).
Overal my compliments on the swift reply to the reviews!


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: CUMULATIVE OXYGEN DEFICIT IS A NOVEL PREDICTOR FOR THE TIMING OF INVASIVE MECHANICAL VENTILATION IN COVID-19 PATIENTS WITH RESPIRATORY DISTRESS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for addressing all this reviewer's comments. This version is a much improved manuscript.
Experimental design: Comments addressed
Validity of the findings: Comments addressed
Additional comments: Although not needed for this manuscript please consider, in the future, testing for normality using multiple methods (including a normal probability plot) for triangulation.

In line 52, please replace the word "significantly" with "substantially" of indicate "clinically significant" (otherwise it is assumed you are referring to statistical significance). Alternatively, please use verbiage simular to "statistical evidence of a difference".

In line 173, please replace the word "significantly" with "substantially" of indicate "clinically significant" (otherwise it is assumed you are referring to statistical significance). Alternatively, please use verbiage simular to "statistical evidence of a difference".

In line 199, please replace the word "significantly" with "substantially" of indicate "clinically significant" (otherwise it is assumed you are referring to statistical significance). Alternatively, please use verbiage simular to "statistical evidence of a difference".

In line 226 & 227, please replace the word "significantly" with "substantially" of indicate "clinically significant" (otherwise it is assumed you are referring to statistical significance). Alternatively, please use verbiage simular to "statistical evidence of a difference".

In line 242, please replace the word "significantly" with "substantially" of indicate "clinically significant" (otherwise it is assumed you are referring to statistical significance). Alternatively, please use verbiage simular to "statistical evidence of a difference".

In line 261, please replace the word "significantly" with "substantially" of indicate "clinically significant" (otherwise it is assumed you are referring to statistical significance). Alternatively, please use verbiage simular to "statistical evidence of a difference".


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: EARLY ABOLITION OF COUGH REFLEX PREDICTS MORTALITY IN DEEPLY SEDATED BRAIN-INJURED PATIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - I would like to congratulate the authors for the interesting study. I commend the use of the STROBE reporting guidelines. I think the study design (cohort study) should be mentioned in the title or abstract and the study design section.

- Follow-up / loss to follow-up have not been mentioned but presumably every participant had follow-up until they were discharged from ICU?

- It has been mentioned in text that FOUR score was lower and SOFA and age were higher in non-survivors. I think Table 4 should include this data for clarity.

- The p value for GCS (line 257) does not match the value in Table 4.
Experimental design: - Recruitment method - were all patients admitted to the designated ICU recruited and assessed for eligibility or the investigators decided which patients to be recruited?

- Study size - how was the size determined? Was power calculation done?

- The efforts to mitigate potential confounding factors is laudable.
Validity of the findings: - I think the limitations of the study have been addressed adequately at the discussion.

- The conclusion states that early cough reflex abolition is an independent predictor of mortality in deeply sedated brain-injured patients. Perhaps it is more accurate to limit that to ICU mortality as patients did not get follow-up after they were discharged from ICU? Had there been any patients discharged from ICU for palliation on the ward and had these been included in the mortality count?

- As you have mentioned in the limitations, doses of sedation were significantly different between those with preserved and abolished cough reflex. 20% of the ICU mortality died secondary to multi-organ failure. To what extent do you think the absence of cough reflex is a result of the high levels of sedative when the plasma level is unknown, and whether this might change the conclusion?
Additional comments: - Some studies have shown that neurological assessment within the first day of brain injury may not be reliable / as good as those performed later in terms of predicting mortality. As you mentioned, it is not common practice to base decision for withdrawal of life supporting treatment solely on day 1 neurological examination findings. Would it be more valuable to assess the prognostication of cough reflex later (e.g. day 3)?


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: EARLY ABOLITION OF COUGH REFLEX PREDICTS MORTALITY IN DEEPLY SEDATED BRAIN-INJURED PATIENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Grammar and style are, by and large, acceptable but could be improved by having a native speaker read through the manuscript.

Scientific background and context, text structure and literature references are adequate. Results are self-contained and relevant to the main hypothesis about brainstem dysfunction in the ICU.
Experimental design: This is an observational study with research questions that are within the aims and scope of the journal. Ethical and technical standards are explained in sufficient detail.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid; some suggestions are provided below.
Additional comments: Kandelman et al. present data related to brainstem reflexes and clinical outcome from a binational, multicenter, prospective observational study on 137 brain-injured patients from the intensive care setting. Their main finding is that abolishment of the cough reflex within 24h after intubation predicted mortality, which remained significant after statistical adjustment for various confounding factors including sedation. This finding from brain-injured patients is in line with the same authors’ earlier data from non-brain injured patients.

The authors argue that, taken together, these results point towards brainstem dysfunction as an important and hitherto overlooked cause of mortality and morbidity in the intensive care unit. This is an intriguing and clinically highly relevant suggestion, which is likely to be picked-up by other researchers in this field.

The methods and statistics appear sound, the manuscript is well-structured (although the English could perhaps be improved somewhat), STROBE guidelines were followed, and the inferences made are sufficiently discussed, including most (but not all) limitations.

The overall conclusion is therefore that the present manuscript adds an important novel aspect to the intensive care literature.

However, I still have some points of criticism.

MAJOR CONCERNS

The authors discuss most limitations appropriately; the most important being lack of MRI assessing presence or absence of brainstem pathology and lack of EEG, respectively, sedative serum levels to assess the degree of sedation as the most significant confounder related to the abolishment of brainstem reflexes, including the cough reflex. However, although the possibility of brainstem dysfunction is certainly exciting, the data presented are inadequate to make inferences about causality – does brainstem dysfunction lead to multiorgan failure or vice versa? Obviously, these effects will almost certainly be bidirectional, but to which extent one or the other direction predominates cannot be answered by the data presented; this should be more clearly acknowledged. Also, the authors speculate that neuroinflammation may predispose to brainstem dysfunction, but is inflammation not rather unlikely to be a prominent factor after just 24 hours?

MINOR ISSUES

Although not strictly necessary, I think the manuscript would benefit from a detailed figure illustrating the concept of brainstem dysfunction, including the relationship between brainstem anatomy and pathophysiological mechanisms (and the bidirectional effects with systemic organ failure as outlined earlier).

Line 82-83: You may consider adding “… by reducing the rate of cerebral oxygen consumption and by decreasing intracranial pressure”.

Line 88: Should be “severely”

Line 89/90: Should be “…examination and electrophysiological testing”

Line 96: Should be “receiving deep sedation” or better “deeply sedated patients”

Lines 96-99: This statement must be backed up by a reference.

Line 103-104: Was the main objective not to extend the findings from non-brain injured critically ill
patients (reference 3) to brain-injured patients, rather than a mere confirmation?

Line 118: ”December 2011 and February 2015” – why the delay in reporting?

Line 131: Should be “Decisions…. mere made…” (decisions are not managed)

Line 152-153: Your previous results were based on non-brain injured patients, whereas your present study involved brain-injured patients, including those with lateralized structural brainstem lesions – in these patients, absence of unilateral (i.e. ipsilateral) brainstem reflexes might carry a worse prognosis. Please comment.

Line 154: Why not in TBI patients? Provided cervical spine injury has been excluded, VOR assessment is safe.

Line 155: Should be “Unresponsiveness”

Line 226: “neurological reasons” – please be more specific, and also state what the remaining reasons for intubation were.

Lines 246-248: How come that infratentorial lesions were associated with better survival? This seems counterintuitive, please comment.

Lines 325/326: Should be “limitations”

Line 345: This section should be marked as “Conclusions”.

Line 349: Should be “over-sedation”


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: EARLY ABOLITION OF COUGH REFLEX PREDICTS MORTALITY IN DEEPLY SEDATED BRAIN-INJURED PATIENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: -
Experimental design: -
Validity of the findings: -
Additional comments: I think the authors have adequately addressed all concerns. This is a very nice neurocritical care manuscript with an intriguing clinical finding. Congratulations.


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: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF GOLDEN TAKIN (BUDORCAS TAXICOLOR BEDFORDI) RECORDED BY CAMERA TRAPPING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: Please see my comments related to (1) space and time, and (2) detection error in the attached PDF.
Validity of the findings: Please see my comments related to context and validity
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: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF GOLDEN TAKIN (BUDORCAS TAXICOLOR BEDFORDI) RECORDED BY CAMERA TRAPPING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See general comments
Experimental design: See general comments
Validity of the findings: See general comments
Additional comments: The presented manuscript is an original study in the field of studying the temporary activity of animals - an important topic in ecology and wildlife conservation. Understanding the patterns of activity helps not only to better know the ecology and adaptations of a particular species or community, but also to plan measures for its protection or management.

To date, camera traps are a well-known method of non-invasive wildlife research. The methodology of working with them is well studied and accessible to a wide range of specialists. One of the simplest tasks of research (and state variables) with camera traps is the analysis of temporary (daily, seasonal) activity.

It is worth saying that, in general, the level of the presented manuscript doesn’t comply with the international standard of work in this area. The tasks posed by the authors are very simple, and the undertaken analytical approaches are not the most suitable. I believe that the manuscript should be thoroughly redone and ready to provide any help and support to the authors, as I have some experience in carrying out such studies. The following are specific recommendations for improving the manuscript:

Introduction
Chapter Introduction is written very well! The main works are indicated both on the research problems (animal behavior) and on the state of the object of study (golden takin). Nevertheless, little attention is paid directly to the question of studying temporal activity. So, when listing various directions in the study of animal behavior using camera traps for temporary activity, only one link is indicated (Xue et al., 2015). This is clearly not enough, given that it is the temporal activity that the authors pay the most attention to. It is worth noting that the literature on this issue has not been worked out by the authors. I would recommend using the following sources:

Bu H., Wang F., McShea W.J., Lu Z., Wang D., Li S. 2016. Spatial co-occurrence and activity patterns of mesocarnivores in the temperate forests of southwest China. PLoS ONE 11(10): e0164271. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164271

Di Bitetti M.S., Paviolo A., De Angelo C. 2006. Density, habitat use and activity patterns of ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) in the Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina. Journal of Zoology 270(1): 153–163. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2006.00102.x

Foster V.C., Sarmento P., Sollmann R., Tôrres N., Jácomo A.T.A., Negrões N., Fonseca C., Silveira L. 2013. Jaguar and puma activity patterns and predator-prey interactions in four Brazilian biomes. Biotropica 45(3): 373–379. DOI: 10.1111/btp.12021

Gerber B.D., Karpanty S.M., Randrianantenaina J. 2012. Activity patterns of carnivores in the rain forests of Madagascar: implications for species coexistence. Journal of Mammalogy 93(3): 667–676. DOI: 10.1644/11-mamm-a-265.1

Hernández-SaintMartín A.D., Rosas-Rosas O.C., Palacio- Núñez J., Tarango-Arámbula L.A., Clemente-Sánchez F., Hoogesteijn A.L. 2013. Activity patterns of jaguar, puma and their potential prey in San Luis Potosí, Mexico. Acta Zoológica Mexicana 29(3): 520–533.

Linkie M., Ridout M.S. 2011. Assessing tiger-prey interactions in Sumatran rainforests. Journal of Zoology 284(3): 224–229. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2011.00801.x

Meek P.D., Ballard G., Claridge A., Kays R., Moseby K., O’Brien T., O’Connell A., Sanderson J., Swann D., Tobler M., Townsend S. 2014. Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research. Biodiversity and Conservation 23(9): 2321–2343. DOI: 10.1007/s10531-014-0712-8

Ogurtsov S.S., Zheltukhin A.S., Kotlov I.P. Daily activity patterns of large and medium-sized mammals based on camera traps data in the Central Forest Nature Reserve, Valdai Upland, Russia // Nature Conservation Research. 2018. 3(2). PP. 68–88. DOI: 10.24189/ncr.2018.031

Porfirio G., Foster V.C., Fonseca C., Sarmento P. 2016. Activity patterns of ocelots and their potential prey in the Brazilian Pantanal. Mammalian Biology-Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 81(5): 511–517. DOI: 10.1016/j. mambio.2016.06.006

Ridout M.S., Linkie M. 2009. Estimating overlap of daily activity patterns from camera trap data. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 14(3): 322–337. DOI: 10.1198/jabes.2009.08038

Wearn O.R. & Glover-Kapfer P. 2017. Camera-trapping for conservation: a guide to best-practices. WWF Conservation Technology Series 1(1). WWF-UK, Woking, United Kingdom. 180 p.

Material and methods

In my opinion, this chapter contains quite a few omissions and methodological inaccuracies. Authors should pay attention to how they divide the day into periods. It is necessary to study in detail the statistical analysis of circular data and carefully approach the description of all the software used. At the same time, I want to note that the technical part about camera traps is written quite fully and well and generally meets the requirements (Meek et al., 2014).

Ln. 123. What is GIS 10.1? Perhaps the authors meant ArcGIS?

Ln. 125. It should be indicated how and why such sample design was chosen. For example, provide a link to Wearn O.R. & Glover-Kapfer P. 2017. (P. 80-82).

Ln. 134. Indicate which type of PIR flash was used. Low-glow, no-glow?

Ln. 144. Perhaps it is better to use the more established and common term RAI (Relative Abundance Index) instead of CR? In order not to produce a lot of synonymous terms.

Ln. 156. Why don’t you take into account the twilight period? And why day and night don’t change throughout the year? Where did this interval come from (18:00 - 6:00)?

Ln. 158. Standard deviation is SD, and SE is standard error.

Where did the authors build their plots? Also in SPSS? In what software did the authors process the photos themselves, how did they extract the metadata in Excel spreadsheet?

Ln. 154-159. Authors should study the analytical approaches adopted as standards for analyzing the temporal activity of animals from camera traps. In particular, circular statistics. To compare activity rhythms and find out what activity gravitates to a species, it is better to use not Chi-square and DAI, but special tests: Watson-Wheeler (Lund et al., 2017) and Wald's statistics (Rowcliffe, 2016). For more information see package guides for R:

Lund U., Agostinelli C., Arai H., Gagliardi A., Portugues E.G., Giunchi D., Irisson J.O., Pocernich M., Rotolo F. 2017. Circular statistics. R package version 0.4–93. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=circular

Niedballa J., Courtiol A., Sollmann R., Mathai J., Wong S.T., Nguyen A.T.T., Mohamed A., Tilker A., Wilting A. 2016. Camera trap data management and preparation of occupancy and spatial capture-recapture analyses. R package version 0.99.9. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/package=camtrapR

Rowcliffe M. 2016. Animal Activity Statistics. . R package version 1.1 https://cran.r-project.org/package=activity

The authors could use then the Manly's selectivity index to observe if the species’ activity can be categorized as diurnal, nocturnal, or crepuscular (see methods in: Bu et al., 2016 or Gerber et al., 2012).

Ln. 171. It is better to call this seasonal activity, rather than annual activity. After all, here we are talking about activity during the year through the seasons, while annual activity implies generalized data on activity during the year (and it is not clear which. Diel?).

Ln. 183. You mention the dawn and the sunset, although you didn’t say anything about these periods in the MatMethods chapter.

You didn’t say anything about the significance of differences in activity between the seasons of the year. Why wasn’t such an analysis conducted? At least Kruskal-Wallis or pairwise multiple comparisons? The same could be done for daily activity in order to statistically identify activity peaks.

You should also clearly understand what you mean by activity. Since the material was collected using camera traps, and the devices themselves were placed along the trails, you can only talk about the activity of movements, but not about the general activity of the takins. These explanations should be given in the M&M chapter.

In the final part of data analysis section, you should report briefly what your null hypothesis is and mention the statistical analyses you will perform.

The chapter Results is well and structured clearly. There are no special questions for it.

Discussion

In general, everything is written very well. Corresponding literature is provided. The research issues are also disclosed. Conclusions are based on the results with a few exceptions.

Ln. 232. "We found no evidence of a significant direct effect of ambient temperature on the annual activity pattern of the species." Sorry, how did you check this and where is the proof of this in the Results chapter?

Ln. 238. "Golden takin exhibited with the most activity at dawn (6:00 to 08:00 am) and dusk (16:00 to 18:00 pm)." You again mention the periods of dawn and dusk, but don’t talk about them in the MatMethods and how they were calculated.

Ln. 291. May be collecting bamboo? Not collecing.

FIG. 1. On the inset map, it would be nice to show in which part of China these mountains are located. It is not clear which region is shown on the map.

FIG. 2. Maps are better represented not as a variation of independent registrations, but as a variation of RAI.

I'm not sure if the authors relate to the work “Activity pattern study of Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in the Qinling Mountains, China by using infrared camera traps” for Integrative Zoology journal? In any case, my comments will be the same as for that manuscript. Most likely, the authors have already seen them. But just in case, I repeated some of them.

My common wish for the future is to use the R program for analysis, where a whole range of packages have been developed specifically for analyzing temporary activity and circular data. These are the camtrapR, overlap, activity, and circular packages. With the help of them, the authors will be able to carry out the analysis and present the results more clearly, deeper and more reliably.


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: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF GOLDEN TAKIN (BUDORCAS TAXICOLOR BEDFORDI) RECORDED BY CAMERA TRAPPING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have recommended some English language the authors are welcome to use or adapt. I would repeat the editor’s comment in the initial decision that “it is critical that you have a native English speaker carefully read the entire manuscript to correct the errors.”
Experimental design: The study design (L116 to L131) is unclear and needs to be rewritten for clarity and repeatability. I have outlined some key points in my response that I believe need to be addressed.
Validity of the findings: The authors have dramatically improved their results and discussion. They are, however, not reporting the  Kruskal-Wallis test correctly. The KW only indicates that at least one sample dominates other samples. If they wish to compare multiple samples (as they do in the text) they need to conduct a post hoc test for the specific pairs. The most common approach is to use Dunn’s test.

I outline this in my review.
Additional comments: Your revisions have improved the manuscript - I appreciate the work that you put into revising this draft. The methods, results, and discussion are much more aligned with their objectives and each other. The manuscript still requires revisions particularly around the study design.

Please see my detailed review (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: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF GOLDEN TAKIN (BUDORCAS TAXICOLOR BEDFORDI) RECORDED BY CAMERA TRAPPING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See General comments
Experimental design: See General comments
Validity of the findings: See General comments
Additional comments: In general, I was pleased with the corrections made by the authors. They took into account most of my comments. Those comments that they did not take into account, they justified and explained the reason. The manuscript underwent significant changes after the review, which, in my opinion, only benefited it. Many thanks to the editor and second reviewer for valuable comments and additions that undoubtedly improved the manuscript. I wish the authors to make the latest corrections and prepare the final version of their manuscript. I hope that in their subsequent articles they will be able to realize all their plans!


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: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ACTIVITY PATTERNS OF GOLDEN TAKIN (BUDORCAS TAXICOLOR BEDFORDI) RECORDED BY CAMERA TRAPPING
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have really improved the basic reporting. There are some grammatical and typographic errors that should be addressed before publishing but overall I think it is it fairly good shape.
Experimental design: Please see my PDF comments in relation to the study design.
Validity of the findings: The interpretation of the elevation results is not correct and needs to be updated to reflect the results of the post hoc analysis.
Additional comments: Once again your revisions have improved the manuscript, and I appreciate the work that you put into revising this draft. Please see my detailed review for details (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: A SIGNATURE OF TUMOR DNA REPAIR GENES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGNOSIS OF SURGICALLY-RESECTED LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Lung cancer has the highest morbidity and mortality of cancer, so the authors use TCGA and GEO datasets dipping 6 novel signature of DNA repair genes for LUAD patients.
Experimental design: a. The sample and the profile cohorts in the study are small, suggest using more datasets to forecast those DNA repair genes as a prognostic and therapy target for LUAD using online tools, such as OSluca for lung cancer (http://bioinfo.henu.edu.cn/LUCA/LUCAList.jsp).
b. Test the relationship between DNA repair genes and therapy, such as radiation, molecular therapy or neoadjuvant therapy;
c. Suggest using OSluca tool to form a forest analysis of the signatures of LUAD;
Validity of the findings: Please using more datasets to assess the signatures of LUAD.
Additional comments: a. Please see the EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN.
b. Improve the manuscript.
c. discuss merit and demerit the signatures of DNA repair genes, compared to the clinically available biomarkers.


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 SIGNATURE OF TUMOR DNA REPAIR GENES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGNOSIS OF SURGICALLY-RESECTED LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Yang et al. evaluated the prognostic impact of 6 DNA repair genes in resected lung cancer.

The aim is generally interesting. However, there are several issues to be solved or explained more for the publication.
Experimental design: First of all, authors chose 6 genes in considering the impact on OS. Therefore, it is out of question that these genes are related to prognosis. The GSE31210 and GSE37745 cohorts validated the results in TCGA data set using survival curves. However, multivariate analysis should be performed not only in TCGA cohort but in validation cohorts.

Figure 2
The location of C and D should be changed according to the alphabet order.
In multivariate analysis, the detail profile or cutoff point of each variable must be clarified. For example, T descriptors were divided into T1-2 and T3-4 as described in Table 1?
TNM stage is often affected by N or M descriptor (In M1-2 cases, the T and N descriptors do not matter for staging). So, fundamentally, these descriptors must not be handled with stage to avoid the double effect of N or M descriptor.
Validity of the findings: Figure 4
It is hard to understand the meaning to compare the prognosis between relapse and relapse-free cases. Authors estimated stage or smoking status using Kaplan-meire curves but the impact of 6 genes are obscure unless multivariate analysis is performed. The points should be explained clearly.
Additional comments: Please refer the comments above.


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 SIGNATURE OF TUMOR DNA REPAIR GENES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGNOSIS OF SURGICALLY-RESECTED LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript reported DNA repair genes-based signature in surgically-resected lung adenocarcinoma. These findings are potential interesting and useful.
Experimental design: None
Validity of the findings: None
Additional comments: This manuscript reported DNA repair genes-based signature in surgically-resected lung adenocarcinoma. These findings are potential interesting and useful. However, a few points need to be better clarified.

1. The flowchart of the whole analysis process should be provided.

2. The authors should consider having a native English speaker, or English Language Editing Service – preferably with background in biology – to revise this work.

3. Please referring to the Table 1 published in paper [PMID: 30604627], a table summarizing the main characteristics of TCGA and GEO datasets should be provided.

4. The authors said “We acquired 68 genes related to DNA repair (Fig. 1).” The interpretation of Fig.1 is too simple, and needs more details.

5. The raw data of several figures needs to be uploaded as Supplementary Tables, such as Fig.1A, Fig.2D, Fig.3C, Fig.3D, etc.

6. The points as follows should be added the references. “DNA repair systems play an important role in cancer”(Line 64) [PMID: 30545397, 31018854]; “DNA repair genes play an essential role in tumorigenesis, tumor progression, and response to therapy”(Line 70) [PMID: 30975222]; “DNA damage repair genes are needed to maintain cell homeostasis…” (Line 222-224) [PMID: 31280482, 31037472, 31655958, 31721033, 29717417]; “Targeted inhibition of the function of specific genes in DNA damage repair…targeted drugs” (Line 226-227) [PMID: 31679124, 31521196].

7. Some limitations of this study should be provided in Discussion

8. What’s the inclusion criteria of screened potential GEO datasets?


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 SIGNATURE OF TUMOR DNA REPAIR GENES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGNOSIS OF SURGICALLY-RESECTED LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: Well written.
Experimental design: Well designed.
Validity of the findings: no comment.
Additional comments: The study identified a 6-DNA repair gene signature associated with prognosis of surgically-resected lung adenocarcinoma based on TCGA and GEO database, which may serve as a novel prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target.

The study is well designed and written. There are some considerations before a major revision.

1. Please define ‘DNA repair gene’ in ‘Materials & Methods’. Or it will confuse the readers.

2. Suggest the authors provide a research workflow.

3. Age was classified as ≥63 and <63. Stage was classified as Stage 1 and Stage 2-4. Why? Different classifications lead to different models.

4. The text in the tables and figures is too small. Note the numbering sequence of sub-tables.

5. Suggest to delete Figure 4(D-H), which seems to have nothing to do with the topic of the article

6. Suggest to delete ‘The mortality rate was 52.5% …the chi-square test (p-value=0.008)’. The chi-square test used here is incorrect. Survival analysis is better here for survival data.

7. The study mainly depends on bioinformatics analysis. More validation from external datasets can make it more reliable.


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 SIGNATURE OF TUMOR DNA REPAIR GENES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGNOSIS OF SURGICALLY-RESECTED LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has been revised according to suggestions.
Experimental design: In revision, the defaults were revised or explained more persuasively.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript has been revised according to suggestions. The aim is generally interesting. Reviewer is looking forward to reading further related articles from same group in the future.


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 SIGNATURE OF TUMOR DNA REPAIR GENES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGNOSIS OF SURGICALLY-RESECTED LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: It is good.
Experimental design: none
Validity of the findings: none
Additional comments: none.


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

Input:
Title: A SIGNATURE OF TUMOR DNA REPAIR GENES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROGNOSIS OF SURGICALLY-RESECTED LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors responded well. However, it still needs some minor revision.

1. The authors selected 'DNA repair-related genes' according to Table S1. They had better describe the source of Table S1, and provide the reference source.

2. Suggest to keep the same font format in Tables and Figures. For instance, all fonts should be unified as Arial in Table 1 and Figure 1.


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

Input:
Title: EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS AND GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSAL OF BETA CORONAVIRUSES IN AFRICAN BATS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: References are present. The Introduction is sufficient. The level of English is OK, although I found several typos:

Line 91-92: serve as reservoir -> serve as a reservoir
Line 105: codding -> coding
Line 107: viprbic.org -> viprbrc.org
Line 183: in earlier study -> in an earlier study

The main result of the article is a phylogenetic tree of coronaviruses from bats, based on the sequences of partial RNA dependent RNA polymerase. Unfortunately, the image of this tree (Figure 1) is low-resolution and I am unable to assess it. Aside from providing a better quality image, I would recommend adding a supplementary tree file, which could be opened by various tree-viewing programs. I like the authors idea to provide bootstrap values as branch width, however some sort of scale is required. It is unclear if the thickest width corresponds to the bootstrap value of 100%. Perhaps label one branch?

In the results and discussion section the authors state that: "We have however shown the importance of molecular surveillance of viruses with zoonotic potential such as coronaviruses". While I agree that such surveillance is of importance, I did not find a sufficient explanation in the article as to how this conclusion is derived from the results of the study or is related to them. Is it because there are so many gaps in data about the sequences of coronaviruses from bats in various regions?

I think Figure 2 and its implications should be better explained or omitted.

The text on Figure 4 is not readable.

I was not able to understand which lines are "concave" and which are "convex" on Figure 5. Perhaps there is some other way to show the paths of viral spread?

A population size estimate of 1E-1 (see Figure 6) is something I do not understand. What is the biological interpretation of such a population size? Is it possible?
Experimental design: The research is original. It would be beneficial to have a modern phylogenetic tree of bat coronaviruses including those from Africa in combination with biogeographic data. It can be stated that the research fills an identified knowledge gap.

The methods are reported in sufficient detail.

However, I think that some restrictions made in this study were not entirely justified.

1. The authors omitted countries with less than 5 sequenced bat coronaviruses. This probably excluded countries like Australia, where several (although apparently less that 5(?)) bat coronaviruses were sequenced. I think it would be interesting to know where do these viruses fit on the phylogenetic tree and how did they got to Australia. This is just one example. I don't see how focusing on a small number of countries (from the large amount inhabited by bats) makes the research better. I would prefer a more detailed project.

2. The phylogenetic tree was based on a single gene, the RNA dependent RNA polymerase. Why not use the complete genomes or sets of genes, which are probably available in most cases? This should be explained. Or is such data lacking?
Validity of the findings: As I already mentioned, some figures can not be assessed due to low resolution. Aside from this, I believe the stated methods seem adequate and have likely provide valid results.

I believe the study can be reproduced from the provided accession numbers and methods descriptions.

I suggest providing the alignments used for the phylogenetic analysis as a supplementary file.

The conclusions could be expanded. I felt that more could be said about why it is important to sequence bat coronavirus genomes and study how they spread from country to country. Perhaps the authors should also highlight the results that in their opinion have the most biological significance.
Additional comments: The work would be greatly improved if it expanded to a larger number of countries and used more genomic data (not just one gene).


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: EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS AND GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSAL OF BETA CORONAVIRUSES IN AFRICAN BATS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is interesting, however, it should be more clearly written and be better structured.

The abstract is written in a very strange style: many abbreviations, methodological details, many numbers, many not sufficient/or poorly explained details - for example, "lineage D" - I think authors should remove all these details and focus on the most important biological results.  For example, I would recommend writing more about dispersal and limited cross-species transmission. I interpret these findings as the key findings in the paper. If I am not right - authors should emphasise the most important findings. Currently, the paper has a very neutral style - just a description of some analyses.

The same recommendation is for the main text - there is not enough structurization of the paper.

FIGURES:
Quality of all figures is too poor - terminal branches of the trees are not readable.
line 254 - vertical instead of horizontal?
figure 1 - what is the root? How it was derived?
figure 6 - what is the Y-axis?

Line 117 - misprint
Experimental design: methods are written with all the necessary details.
Validity of the findings: Main findings - high dispersion of the viruses (probably together with bats) and limited cross-species transmission should be better demonstrated and written in more clear way.
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: EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS AND GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSAL OF BETA CORONAVIRUSES IN AFRICAN BATS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Review of “EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS AND GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSAL OF
BETA CORONAVIRUSES IN AFRICAN BATS” by Motayo et al.

The authors have put together a valuable new dataset, expanding our understanding of the diversity of betacoronaviruses. They focus on diversity in bats, mainly from Africa; this group is critical for our understanding of the potential of interspecies transmission of betacoronaviruses. While previous studies (e.g. Lu et al. Lancet 2020) have made use of complete genomes, this work uses partial or complete sequences of a single gene, RdRP; while providing lower phylogenetic resolution, it still provides valuable data on phylogeography and phylodynamics. In particular, they identify instances of inter-species transmission.

Overall, this manuscript is certainly timely and important. The main problem, I believe, is that the presentation of this data is unclear, and this impedes understanding. Overall, I found the manuscript difficult to read, some necessary details missing, and some statements mutually contradictory. I suggest a thorough revision of the text and figures for clarity. Furthermore, it is somewhat hard to understand what exactly the authors want us to take out of their work; a clearer summary of the key findings would be appreciated. I provide examples below.

1.	According to the Data collection section of the Methods, the authors put together three distinct datasets; if I understand correctly, dataset 1 is nested within 2, and 2 within 3. However, these names are not used systematically, and I am confused by the interrelation between them. For example, the beginning of the Results section digs right into the details of dataset analysis, without pointing out which one is used.
2.	If I understand correctly, dataset 1 is new, and is based on novel sequencing results. If so, information on sample acquision, sequencing protocols, assembly, etc. should be provided.
3.	Many of the key results depend on the interpretation of Fig. 1. However, unfortunately the resolution of this figure is very poor, and I am unable to read the labels. Therefore, I am unable to see if the data supports claims like those in lines 175-179 and 180-182. The same holds for Fig. 4.
4.	There are multiple typos, word omissions, etc.; e.g., “was” instead of “were” in L. 43, omitted space in L. 139, etc.
5.	L112: what was the motivation for excluding countries with <5 sequences?
6.	L121: Did you use CD-HIT to exclude some of the sequences? If yes, which sequences were excluded, and how many?
7.	L180: what exactly is the evidence for inter-species transmission?
8.	Phrases in L190-192 and 192-193 seem to contradict one another. The authors should clarify which explanation they favor, and why.
9.	The dating of the lineage C based on one dataset is 2010 (95% HPD, 2006-2014, L196), but based on another, it’s 1983. Why the difference, which estimate do you favor, and why?
10.	L190: “The absence of Lineage B” – you mean “in Africa”?


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: EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS AND GEOGRAPHIC DISPERSAL OF BETA CORONAVIRUSES IN AFRICAN BATS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have improved their manuscript. The English is ok. Most data was shared, aside from the tree files. References are present. Results are relevent to hypotheses.

I still think that figures 1-4 should have improved resolution or better presentation, as most of them are difficult to read.

Figure 5 lacks a label on the Y axis.

The discription for Figure 4 now reads:

"Concave lines (upward curving) show a clockwise spread
movement between two points, while the convex bending (downward curving) lines depict anticlockwise movement between the points".

As I understand clockwise and anticlockwise movement, both kinds of lines correspond to left-to-right movement. I'm not sure if this is what the authors wanted to mean. Perhaps both upward curving and downward curving lines should be read clockwise? Then left-to-right movement would be shown with concave lines and right-to-left movement will be shown with convex lines. Or maybe I am confused. Why not use arrows?
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: CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES OF HEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS WITH COVID-19: A RETROSPECTIVE SINGLE CENTER STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is written in clear English language with an unambiguous text, but there are grammatical errors as well as noticeable mistakes in sentence structuring and article placements (a/an/the).

The article includes a sufficient introduction and background with proper referencing.

The structure is conformed to an acceptable format of standard sections.

Figures and tables are labelled correctly and relevant to the content of the article.

More detailed information is needed to describe the statistical analysis. For instance what statistical test was used to calculate the p-value , what is the cutpoint p-value for statistical significance.

Appropriate raw data have been made available in accordance with the Data Sharing policy.

The article is self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses, but there are clear limitations in the study design.
Experimental design: The article is original primary research within the aims and scope of this journal.  The research question is well-defined, relevant, and meaningful.

Methods need further explanation, especially statistical analysis, and the rationale behind the clear difference in number between hemodialysis patients and non-dialysis controls, which I think had an impact on the calculated p-values.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well-stated and linked to the original research question. Limitations of the study are acknowledged. There is a need for multi-center studies with a larger number of patients to confirm the results reached and confirm their validity.

Underlying data have been provided, but I need more information about the statistical tests used to calculate p-values and determine statistical significance.
Additional comments: I think that your article need more editing in term of grammar and sentence structuring. I will advise you to include more details on the statistical tests used and how statistical significance was defined.

A few suggested corrections:

In line 39 - COVID-19 is now considered a global pandemic by the World Health Organization.
In line 44 - As hemodialysis patients need admission to hospital for dialysis.
In lines 52 to 55 - We aim to provide an insight on the clinical assessment and management of hemodialysis patients with COVID-19 infection through describing their clinical characteristics, laboratory
findings, radiological characteristics, treatment, and outcomes.

In line 62 -  is a well-established tertiary hospital that has been operational for 150 years.

In line 97/98 - All patients had a contact history with febrile patients within the epidemic area.

In line 109 -  hemodialysis patients had a higher incidence of pulmonary effusion.

In line 148 - Hemodialysis patients had clinical symptoms similar to other confirmed COVID-19 cases.


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: CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES OF HEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS WITH COVID-19: A RETROSPECTIVE SINGLE CENTER STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	I think that English and clarity, in general, should be revised. Indeed, mainly the first part of the abstract (there are two different abstracts uploaded!), the introduction and the methods section are unclear in some points.
For example, looking at the “definitions” paragraph, it is not clear if the patients were discharged while still infected or not.
Experimental design: 2.	There are data on time to negative SARS-COV2 throat swabs? There were differences between the group? In my experience, I noticed that HD patients often present a long-lasting infection
3.	I think that many of the differences observed between COVID+ HD patients vs non-HD were not due to COVID, but to HD condition per sè. The authors recognize this issue in the discussion, but I think that it should be further reinforced (for example this consideration applies also to anaemia).
4.	Can we have some data on HD treatment performed (HD, HDF??)
5.	How was the incubation period defined?
Validity of the findings: 6.	Finally, and most importantly, I think that the data here presented, maybe because of the small sample of patients, do not fully support (at least statistically) the authors' conclusions about an increased mortality rate and hospital stay in HD patients. So, I suggest, if it is not possible to increase the number of patients, to be more prudent with the conclusions.
Additional comments: Dear Authors, as you can see from my comments, I have some remarks and suggestions to improve the paper before considering for publication.
In particular, I think that the clarity of the language, the definitions of clinical criteria of infection and the interpretations of the results should be revised to make the paper more readable and suitable.


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: CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES OF HEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS WITH COVID-19: A RETROSPECTIVE SINGLE CENTER STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The logic of this manuscript is not clear enough. In additional, it is a big problem in the written English of this manuscript, even the author and department info. were wrongly written, such as "Nail and breast surgery Department".
Experimental design: 1. Hemodialysis patients were a high-risk group of SARS-coV-2 infections. As shown in PubMed, more than 70 papers concerning COVID-19 in Hemodialysis patients have been published since the outbreak of COVID-19. However, the authors claimed several times that "Currently, the research about hemodialysis patients with COVID-19 is scarce. 143 This study is one of the first to report clinical characteristics and outcomes exhaustively". The authors did not search in Pubmed? Compared with these published papers, the current manuscript added little to this area.
2. It is a single-center study with only 16 COVID-19 hemodialysis patients enrolled, which is not representative enough. The data provided is not convincing due to the small sample size.
3. The diagnostic criteria was from WHO, but the treatment was using Chinese guideline 6th edition?
4. Table 3 makes no sense because of the small size of the patients enrolled.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: 1. Hemodialysis patients were a high-risk group of SARS-coV-2 infections. As shown in PubMed, more than 70 papers concerning COVID-19 in Hemodialysis patients have been published since the outbreak of COVID-19. However, the authors claimed several times that "Currently, the research about hemodialysis patients with COVID-19 is scarce. 143 This study is one of the first to report clinical characteristics and outcomes exhaustively". The authors did not search in Pubmed? Compared with these published papers, the current manuscript added little to this area.
2. It is a single-center study with only 16 COVID-19 hemodialysis patients enrolled, which is not representative enough. The data provided is not convincing due to the small sample size.
3. The diagnostic criteria was from WHO, but the treatment was using Chinese guideline 6th edition?
4. Table 3 makes no sense because of the small size of the patients enrolled.


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: CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES OF HEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS WITH COVID-19: A RETROSPECTIVE SINGLE CENTER STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In general, the quality of the paper and the English have been improved.
Please, see line 98, use "admission" instead of "admition"
Experimental design: As suggested, the study population has been better described.
In addition, I'd like to know how many HD patients with COVID-19 the authors have seen and how they selected the 16 patients included in this analysis.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions have been changed respect to the first version of the paper and now they are more pertinent to the data presented.
Additional comments: The quality of the study has been improved, such as its clarity.