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: EXPLORING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES USING MULTIVARIATE GEOVISUALIZATION: WEST NILE VIRUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: •	Writing is generally good
•	Line 58 should be Diaz, Roux, and Mair or Diaz et al.?
•	In general need to be consistent in citation style
•	Line 68 ‘spread’ could be ‘primarily spread’
•	Are there missing references at the end? E.g. I don’t see Wimberly
•	Don’t see Ozdernal, Kilpatrick in list of refernces but in Table 1
•	Need to check all citations are referenced
•	Line 273 take out ‘the’ in ‘the a moderately’
•	Generally I don’t think it is the best to call demographic variables ‘non-spatial’
•	Maps aren’t very clear or informative (i.e. Figures 8 and 10). Purple background no use. How about having a base map for context? Reduce visibility (thickness) of census tract outlines
Experimental design: •	Lines 73-77, I don’t believe there has been sufficient establishment to make this statement. Could there be something more to support this statement? What is meant by non-spatial factor? Wouldn’t it pay to establish here that technique wise there has been a lack of use of geovisualization? Actually I see more of this below.
•	Not enough justification for environmenta/climatic variables in relation to relevant vector species in California.
•	Unclear on exactly the way the risk surface (Figure 2, Table 1) was calculated. Lines 133-142 could be expanded upon.
Validity of the findings: •	The findings are somewhat limited – e.g. in the Discussion section stretching a bit, strengthen by tying a bit more to literature
•	Also discuss the fact that the work would be more valuable if there were WNV human incidence data at a spatially more specific level (e.g. census tract – e.g. DeGroote et al.)
•	The WVV risk model (Figure 2) seemingly doesn’t have a high correspondence with the actual occurrence of WNV (Figure 3)
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: EXPLORING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES USING MULTIVARIATE GEOVISUALIZATION: WEST NILE VIRUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction is nicely written and I have some minor comments below. However, as described in "Experimental design" and "Validity of the findings", I have major reservations about the analytical methods used and their interpretation.

Introduction
Line 76. Please can the authors clarify the distinction between “contextual and compositional factors”, possibly since both mosquito habitat availability and age structure of the population at risk could be considered to be contextual or compositional factors. For example, there may be varying composition of mosquito vector species across the landscape within the community or the landscape composition may vary in the amount of larval mosquito habitat available. Would social versus environmental factors be better?
Line 90.  “number WNV-positive dead birds”, insert “of” after “number”
Line 91 to 93. Can the authors say something more substantial about the results of their prior study here e.g. about the role of different environmental factors in explaining WNV risk?
Line 97. Briefly describe here how the composition of the susceptible human population may be informative about WNV risk, referring to prior papers, to give the reader context.

Results, Line 221. The authors seem to suggest that they are among the first to find that including geographical environmental factors improves prediction or understanding of vector-borne disease patterns, referring to Beck’s 1994 finding. There are some 10s to 100s of papers that have shown this finding since which could be cited in the discussion
Experimental design: 1. The research question is not well defined.

The study initially postulates that both the underlying environmental context and the susceptible population’s composition should be understood to adequately predict a vector borne disease infection risks, a point which is relatively novel and with which I agree. However, the specific question in relation to the WNV study system is not well defined and the analyses selected do not demonstrate the linkage between these factors well at all. The outputs have limited value for public health planning, contrary to the authors suggestions.
Line 77 states “we hypothesize that geovisualization techniques to explore these relationships will result in a more complete understanding of the complex patterns related to this disease.”
Since the authors do not explicitly relate social factors and mosquito habitat to WNV incidence within a spatial model, and assess the variance explained by these two sets of factors they have not yielded new understanding of risk factors.  It is not clear to me why the authors have chosen to use tools like self-organizing maps and parallel coordinate plots (line 98), rather than simply adding the human population factors to the prior geographically weighted regression.

2. Analytical methods are not appropriate or rigorous.
Line 180. The authors do not adequately describe why they want to create a self-organizing map, saying that it is to “reduce the dimensionality of data for data visualization purposes”. This data reduction seems unnecessary and unlikely to improve interpretation, since they authors only have 7 variables per census tract and >8000 census tracts in their sample, thus the number of data points per candidate predictor are large and should allow the predictor effects to be robustly estimated in a GWR model or other spatial mixed modelling approach.

2.1.	The self-organizing map results (Line 268 to 294 and Fig. 5) are very hard to interpret and of low value for public health because these are purely statistical clusters, where neither the cluster membership, nor the social or mosquito habitat variables that define clusters, have been related to WNV incidence for the tracts in this setting. Very many clusters are created, some of which are very small, covering very little of the area of interest. Only 19 and 30 census tracts out of over 1000 tracts fall into the two clusters highlighted for their public health importance. What practical advice could be given to public health decision makers on the basis of highlighting two clusters on a map with interacting mosquito and social factors, the latter of which have unknown predictive power for WNV incidence? From the % ethnicity variables in the PCP plots, it seems that non-orthgonal variables are being used in the clustering which further reduces the interpretability of the clusters. In terms of the  vulnerability of different age groups to severe clinical outcomes of WNV, I would also question whether the median age is the most appropriate metric of age structure to use. Isn’t it more important for health planning to know how the absolute number of individuals from vulnerable age groups varies between census tracts with different mosquito habitat risk?

2.2	Line 157. The way that the high incidence data area is created for the SOMs, from the county level human incidence data, is extremely strange. The incidence data are treated as reflective of the centroids only of a county rather than of the county as a whole, and used to create an elliptical high incidence area.  The authors do not make it clear why they wanted to reduce the census tracts to only those in high incidence areas (Line 231) in the first place but this method of finding the high incidence area is not as defensible as simply using the admin boundaries of the counties from which we know the data are recorded. Overall, when studying environmental and social risk factors for vector-borne diseases in a spatial framework, you may be missing important variation if you reduce your study area to only high incidence areas.

2.3	Line 139. The methods and results for the mosquito habitat model are very unclear. The landscape variables in Table 1 are not described in enough detail for someone else to replicate the study. E.g. Is “temperature” the  annual mean air temperature per tract? What resolution and which data source was this derived from? Were the stream amounts lengths of stream per census tract? Were the cultivated and developed lands the proportional or absolute amount of such land within a particular buffer zone of the census tract. How were the weights for the overlay selected and validated against mosquito or WNV incidence data, using which statistics? Line 225. The authors should give some statistics to demonstrate the variance explained in observed census-tract level WNV infection risk by their mosquito habitat model, similar to those they provide from their prior model, rather than just providing the map in Figure 2. Without this information, it is impossible to assess the value of the map for public health planning.

3. Minor points requiring clarity in the methods are how large are census tracts relative to counties on average and what were the time periods from which the different types of WNV incidence data were drawn.
Validity of the findings: 4. Because of the methodological short-comings above, especially the lack of validation statistics for the mosquito model, the small geographical size of the clusters under discussion, and the unproven predictive ability of the variables defining the clusters for incidence, most areas of the discussion and conclusions are not well founded. I give three specific examples here.

4.1 Line 338 “This newly revealed pattern reinforces a suggestion that WNV disease, like other vector-borne infectious diseases, may not necessarily be contracted in the location where a person lives, but rather where they may have traveled to locations that represent higher risk areas.”
This finding has been widespread across vector-borne diseases and has led authors to map human activities that lead to exposure. A much wider range of literature could be cited here.

4.2. Line 400 “Another interesting pattern uncovered was that census tracts in the county that had the highest reported incidence of WNV had relatively low mosquito habitat risk. This might lead to a speculation that demographic compositional parameters should be weighted more importantly than mosquito habitat risk when developing public health plans.”

This could easily be explained by other factors like poor links between modelled mosquito habitat risk and WNV risk in areas outside the training set data or spatial biases in recording effort operating differently at the county level and the census tract level.

4.3. Line 382. Our results suggest that the visualization of similarity clustering of multivariate attributes facilitates the analysis of complex data.
I can't agree with this statement. Due to the low interpretability of the analyses used and their low value for public health interventions, I don't agree that there is benefit to the literature from this study in its current form.
Additional comments: I was excited by the introduction to your paper since I agree that frameworks for vector-borne diseases badly need to link environmental hazard with interacting social factors that determine exposure and vulnerability. However, as I have described above, I don't think that the analytical methods you have chosen are appropriate or robust for such linkage. I would very much hope that the comments above help in some way in the re-framing of your models so that you can re-formulate the paper and outputs for public health.


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: VIABLE BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES ON HOSPITAL WINDOW COMPONENTS IN PATIENT ROOMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study is well written, has appropriate references (mostly) and is professionally laid out.

As a preliminary study, the results only provide a brief glimpse to help test the primary hypothesis, and more work will need to be done to provide a compelling test.
Experimental design: The major flaw in this design is the absence of time. The authors admit this. Longitudinal observation would have provided evidence to refute or validate many of the potential claims in this paper. In the absence of time series any interpretations are speculative at best.
Validity of the findings: Overall the study is a basic snapshot of the hospital environment, but without time or environmental analysis, these data have immediate limited value as none of the speculative interpretations can be tested with the data as presented here.
Additional comments: Ln 245-248: Fig 2C – the abundance profiles are incredibly slight, what is the median, mean and SD for each of those? What is the p?

Ln 270-284 – as this is proportional data, refer to it as such, to differentiate from the qPCR abundance data.

Fig. 4b – I am again surprised that the alpha diversity is significantly different on the window? The distribution of scores is definitely tighter, as such maybe using a statistic that takes into consideration spread would be valuable?

Surprised not to see any environmental data – light, relative humidity, temperature, that could have been used to interpret trends? i.e. were rooms closer to the nursing station environmentally different?

Statements like “Further, this study confirmed a spatial pattern to bacterial abundance based on putative occupancy density, which implies that human occupants may have a stronger effect on indoor microbial communities than ambient light exposure.” – should be tempered, as proximity to the nursing station may have no impact at all on bacterial burden per se, let alone occupant density – without occupancy detection being measured, this is just one possible explanation? Another might be different disease state, or patient age, or equipment?

The discussion is very long for such a limited results paper, there is a certain tendency towards over interpretation. For example, referencing Hirai 1991 regarding nutrient retention on glass, and then using that as a potential explanation is another example of one potential explanation, but this is not substantiated by the reference.

Remember, you have 1 single time point, so talking about glass as a barrier for bacterial development is hyperbolic – viable cells doesn’t mean they are active, growing or persisting. They may have just landed there?

There is no evidence to support bacterial adhesion to the glass – “This suggests that bacteria able to successfully adhere to the glass are able to survive intact.” Static interaction between positively charged dust particles could also result in temporary adhesion of dust, which may contain bacterial cells.

“and a lack of regular cleaning and frequent reinoculation from patients and visitors in the room might explain the higher differential abundance of these specific bacteria on the glass.” – the differences were slight at best, without a temporal analysis this is extreme speculation.


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: VIABLE BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES ON HOSPITAL WINDOW COMPONENTS IN PATIENT ROOMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Horve et al estimate bacterial load and community composition associated with 6 different sites on window components in hospital rooms. The paper is largely descriptive, but the authors find greater numbers of viable bacteria in widows that have not recently been exposed to direct sunlight, and in rooms which are more central in the hospital floor plan.
The paper is well written, the figures are easy to interpret, and the authors make reasonable and well referenced inferences from their data.
Experimental design: All samples were taken during an hour long sampling window on a single day, which necessarily limits the authors' ability to test their hypothesis that recent direct sunlight lowers viable bacterial cell counts (i.e. it would have been nice to have measurements from west facing windows taken at sunset). Still, the authors do not over extrapolate from their data, and provide meaningful context to their hypotheses. I have no personal expertise in DNA extraction/amplification, but their methodology is well described and appears rigorous. The statistical analyses are reasonable and well described. The methods are sufficiently descriptive that the study could be easily replicated.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data has been provided. The conclusions are well stated and speculation is identified as such and supported by citations to other research.
Additional comments: Two minor points in the abstract:

Lines 32 & 87: I assume the authors mean ‘does not raise cause for alarm’

Lines 43-44: This seems like an incomplete sentence, perhaps the authors mean to say something like ‘and community composition was assessed using Illumina…’


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: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEIVED CAUSES LEADING TO TASK-FAILURE IN RESISTANCE-EXERCISES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors' reporting of the data was clear and effective. The manuscript is very well written in its current form.
Experimental design: The study's experimental design was appropriate given the authors' research question. The study does not have any major or fatal flaws that prohibit it from being considered for publication. The approach to the problem was straightforward and easy to understand.
Validity of the findings: The findings of the study were valid given the research question and design.
Additional comments: Within the last decade, the need to perform resistance training exercises to failure has drawn attention from researchers and practitioners, with some evidence demonstrating that doing so enhances outcomes related to muscle hypertrophy. However, the perceptual aspect of training to failure and why trainees can't complete additional repetitions have received little attention in the literature. As such, the authors of the present study have attempted to understand these perceptions by asking participants their reasons for discontinuing a set.

I found this research study to be interesting, with the topic being worthy of additional attention from the field. The general premise of the research question was fairly simple, yet some aspects of the findings were surprising. The manuscript is very well-written and the study's design does not feature any fatal flaws that prevent this work from eventually being accepted. With this being stated, I have a few comments for the authors that need clarity during subsequent revisions. I have separated my thoughts into major and minor comments, and have generally tried to list them in chronological order. Overall, a job well done by the authors.

MAJOR COMMENTS
-One thing I believe worth mentioning further is the fact that all of the participants in this study were resistance trained. It would seem that each individual's unique resistance training experience, including styles of training, frequency, etc. would shape how one perceives training until failure. Did the authors capture any data pertaining to whether or not these participants regularly trained to failure, as well which exercises they train to failure with?

-The beliefs and attitudes about muscle fatigue, as well as general knowledge and previous education pertaining to resistance training anatomy are also probably very important. I'd imagine that each participant had his/her own perceptions about this topic prior to even engaging in the exercise. Was this considered?

-Though the study's sample size was relatively small, I think exploration of sex differences is worthy of consideration. It would be interesting to learn if the perceptual responses differ for men versus women. If so, this may have implications for sex-specific resistance training guidelines.

-Similar to the previous two comments, it would be interesting for future studies to explore whether these perceptual responses change as individuals progress in their training (i.e., going from a novice to mid-level trainee).

-Please clarify that each participant performed these exercises under controlled conditions and not with other participants nearby.

-Personally I don't care for Figure 1, as I think it makes more sense to display each of the five categories on the same graph(s). Maybe one approach would be to create a graph for each condition (i.e., bench and squat at 70% and 83% 1RM), with the percentage of the selected areas shown. Another simple solution might be to use pie charts.

MINOR COMMENTS
-Please consider incorporating the number of repetitions performed into the analysis, as there may be wide variability despite a relative % of the 1RM selected. Perhaps there is a trend with respect to certain perceptual responses and the number of repetitions performed? For example, those that performed more repetitions may have had higher heart rates and therefore more complaints related to cardiovascular strain.


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: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEIVED CAUSES LEADING TO TASK-FAILURE IN RESISTANCE-EXERCISES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for the opportunity to review your submission to PeerJ.  The purpose of this manuscript was to investigate potential causes leading to task-failure in resistance-type exercises in trained men and women.  With this submission, the authors attempt to provide insight to a unique question in the field of exercise science.  However, I have some suggestions that I believe will improve the quality of the paper.
Experimental design: -	Unless I am missing it, the paper seems to lack a classic “purpose statement”.  I would recommend the authors adding more direction here, which will increase the impact of your work.

-	The use of two experimental days is not clear.  At later points in the manuscript the authors reveal a “heavy” and a “light” day; however, this is not clarified in the experimental design section. I recommend the authors consider the use of a schematic diagram to clearly present this to the reader. Further, the authors should detail what randomization procedure was placed on the “day”. I.e., was the heavy day always second? This may impact the outcomes of the paper.
Validity of the findings: -	Within the data frame shared by the authors, there are a few things of note.  Two subjects are highlighted without note as to why.  Also, there are some variables listed in this data frame, that are not discussed in the manuscript (i.e. ,barbell velocity). I defer to the direction of the editor, but you may look into reporting those data within the manuscript or removing the variables from your data table. The additional variables that are not discussed may cause confusion to readers of you work
-	I there a reason the subject numbers start with 3 vs 1?
-	Subject 23 and 24 seem to have a bit of missing data – subject 24 has 0 data outside of demographics – is this the technical issues the authors mentioned?
-	Small error in subject 19 weight
-	Please consider placing units by each variable
Additional comments: Figures and Tables:
Figure 1: I appreciate the authors clearly presenting the frequency of each of their responses.  However, I’m not sure this is the best way to describe your findings.  Have the authors looked into tables with the outcomes of their statistical models vs. these bar charts?
Introduction
1.	I believe the terms momentary-failure and repetition maximum may not be the most appropriate.  Specifically, I believe the field recognizes “repetition maximum” as the maximum load which a person can lift maximally, vs. the final repetition one can complete prior to reaching MF (as used in the present work).  I believe these definitions may lead to ambiguity, which may limit your impact.  Please consider revising/clarifying.
2.	Line 48: When describing the “reasons” underpinning task-failure, I recommend adding some clarity here. Are the authors referring to physiological or psychological? The preceding sentence suggests you are discussing “physiological reasons” which cause task failure, though the rest of the manuscript does not have this focus.

Methods
3.	Was there an a priori power analysis performed?
4.	Line 101: The reference listed here is not properly cited. Upon searching the internet, I have found a pre-print, but am unsure if this is what the authors are citing.
5.	Line 122: Please update from “weighted” to “weighed”.  Also, can the author provide additional detail on how this was performed (i.e., calibrated scale?).  To confirm, height, age and training age was self-reported?
6.	Line 123: Can the authors give me more detail on how the participants were “briefed on the study’s aims”? I am concerned that the subjects being aware of what you were looking at may have impacted your outcome measures.
7.	Line 124-125: How was the knee angle assessed?
8.	Line 143-144: How was a ~2 second descent insured for each repetition? Or was this a general observation? I believe either is fine, but adding clarity will increase reproducibility of your methods. Similarly, why did the authors wait 20-40 seconds after set completion to interview the subjects?
9.	Lines 181-182: Can you please provide the specific examples of where random effects were added (and what they were specifically)? The same should be noted for where (and what) interactions were placed in the models. Both of these parameters may significantly impact the interpretations and should not be overlooked.
10.	Please cite R appropriately. This can easily be done using the “citation()” argument within R itself.
11.	I appreciate you recognizing your use of the “lattice” package (please cite appropriately using citation(“lattice”)), but I do not believe this package can run your mixed logistic regression models. If that is accurate, could you please list the relevant package(s) you used?
12.	How were model assumptions checked?
Results
13.	Only ~23% of statements received were due to momentary failure vs. repetition maximum lifts. Have the authors considered how this may impact their outcomes?
14.	The authors report 10 missing observations in the heavier day – this leads me to believe these data were not missing at random and may be an issue to be investigated further. Have the authors considered this?
15.	Due to the amount of missing observations, I would recommend a modified version of a CONSORT diagram to be presented.  This may be a way to clearly represent the data collected, what is missing, and the final sample used for analyses.
16.	Line 191: You describe muscle fatigue as being the most frequent category responsible for terminated sets.  However, muscle fatigue was not directly described in your methods.  Is this a special case of “specific fatigue (line 163)”?
17.	 I appreciate the reporting of the beta, SE and P values by the authors.  However, have the authors considered reporting odds ratios instead of the coefficients?
18.	The statistics reported in the results may be better listed in a separate table to allow the reader to quickly and easily compare between models.
Discussion
19.	The authors do a nice job of summarizing their findings.  However, there is minimal comparison of the findings presented in the present manuscript to the body of literature as a whole. For example, I believe there is only one reference in the discussion section in total. I recommend the authors consider significant revision to this section to better compare/contrast with the available literature.
20.	How does the current population impact your results? I would argue that some of your subjects were not very well trained (based off of low training age and reported 1RM strength), while others may be particularly trained.  Is it possible that the heterogeneous sample may have impacted your findings?


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: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEIVED CAUSES LEADING TO TASK-FAILURE IN RESISTANCE-EXERCISES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting within this manuscript is excellent. The writing is clear and unambiguous. The Introduction does a nice job of framing the research question and the need for this experiment. The Discussion is concise and provides meaningful interpretations for the reader. The only recommendation for the reporting is to include “0’s” prior to the decimal point (i.e., p = 0.716).
Experimental design: The experimental design used in this study is appropriate to address the well-articulated research question. The design is simple yet constructed in a way that faithfully answers the research question. The methods described are thorough and will allow for replication.
Validity of the findings: The experimental design of the study provides high external validity. The use of common exercises (e.g., squat and bench press) in a resistance trained population with commonly used exercise intensities allows the findings of this study to be generalized to this population. The author's speculation on possible differential adaptations due to different limiting factors provides a meaningful avenue for future research.
Additional comments: It was a pleasure to review this manuscript. I have a few minor suggestions that are intended to improve the quality of an already high-quality manuscript.
Line 48 would be strengthened if the authors include ‘subjective’ before ‘reasons underpinning task-failure’.
Line 81, the sentence that begins “Hence,...” would be improved if broken into two sentences.
For instance: Hence, in this study we instructed resistance-trained subjects to reach task-failure in the squat and bench-press exercises under two load conditions (70% and 83% of 1RM). After set completion, we asked them what was the limiting factor in the set and why they could not perform another repetition. Their answers were recorded...:”
Line 97, I appreciate and understand the author's description of their decision to use the intensity in the study (70 & 83%). Yet, it is still not entirely intuitive why 2 separate (somewhat) similar intensity zones were necessary for the experiment. I do not feel this takes away from the findings, but if some minor additional details could be provided here it would benefit the manuscript.
Line 122, weighed instead of weighted


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: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEIVED CAUSES LEADING TO TASK-FAILURE IN RESISTANCE-EXERCISES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: At this point I have no further comments or concerns. I believe that this paper will make a solid contribution to the resistance training/perception literature. Well done!


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: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEIVED CAUSES LEADING TO TASK-FAILURE IN RESISTANCE-EXERCISES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting of data, previous literature and ideas are clear and well done.
Experimental design: The design of the study matches well with the proposed research topic.
Validity of the findings: All data have been provided and support the authors' findings.
Additional comments: I wish to thank the authors for their careful revisions. I very much appreciate all of the responses to my comments. I think the manuscript as a whole has improved and is great. I have just couple of very minor comments for your to consider moving forward:

Model Table: I like the addition of this table, as it allows the reader access to your models completely. I also appreciate the logical expression of your random effects. Though, I further recommend specifying your random effects in the text (e.g., random slope per participant, random intercepts and slopes per participant etc…) to further clarify for the reader who may incorrectly interpret the elements of your model within your table.

Dataset: There is a “Sheet1” tab that has a few random integers. Unless you have another purpose for this that I have missed, please remove this tab to avoid confusion for the readers. Within your dataframe itself, there are still two columns that are fully without data (i.e., height_saftey_bench, dip (m)) that you should also consider either filling in with data or to remove to make things clean for the reader. Lastly, cell U,6 has an empty comment from Isaac Rozen. The dataset otherwise looks easy to comprehend and is very much appreciated.


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: AN ANALYSIS OF THE PERCEIVED CAUSES LEADING TO TASK-FAILURE IN RESISTANCE-EXERCISES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting is clear and unambiguous. The revised version is indeed improved.
Experimental design: The experimental design is sounds and well described. The revised version of the manuscript has improved the clarity of the experimental design.
Validity of the findings: The main findings are well articulated and the revised version of the manuscript has improved the overall quality and generalizability.
Additional comments: The authors have adequately addressed my comments. The manuscript is improved. Well done.


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: BACTERIAL COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND ENZYME ACTIVITIES IN IMPERATA CYLINDRICA LITTER AS PHYTOREMEDIATION PROGRESSES IN A COPPER TAILINGS DAM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript entitled “Bacterial community characteristics and enzyme activities in Imperata cylindrica litter as phytoremediation progresses in a copper tailings dam” presented the comparison of bacterial community characteristics and enzyme activities of I. cylindrica litter depends on the different stage of phytoremediation progresses. The experiments were well-designed and the results were explained well with proper discussion. However, there are some important things needed to be explained and revised before its publication, therefore, I suggest it to be published with major revision.

1.	The abstract should be re-written.
2.	Give the details of sampling method. Generally, the surface sample could be easily affected by external factors. How did the authors collect the samples of litter and soil?
3.	In the session of “Materials & Methods”, were the heavy metal elements and enzyme measure for litter? If yes, I curious what happened to these in the soil.
4.	As mentioned in the manuscript, the decomposition rate will be inhibited due to the C/N ratio. However, the C/N ratio of S560 is not the lowest, but its decomposition rate is low?
5.	Line 250-251: “This class, however, was strongly adaptable in its ability to dissolve phosphates in soil (Brabcova et al. 2016).” It seems the phosphate is an import factors for he microbial communities. I recommend authors add the phosphate data for the soil and litter.
6.	The concentration of Cu is the highest heavy metal in the litter, but I did not see proper discussion about its impact on litter decomposition or phytoremediation.
7.	The information was poor in Table 1, which could be replaced by a sentence in the manuscript. Please provide more details or deleted.
8.	Line 103-104: “Soil pH was measured after shaking in a soil-water (1:2.5 m/v) suspension for 30 min.” Give detail explanation of pH measurement, m/v or w/v?
9.	What is d in Fig. 5? Explain more for Fig. 6.
10.	Line 246-247: “Moreover, Actinobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria were the dominant bacteria in litter in all three sub-dams.” These 2 are classes, not bacteria.
11.	Check the full manuscript, some spelling mistakes and improper sentences are existing in the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: BACTERIAL COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND ENZYME ACTIVITIES IN IMPERATA CYLINDRICA LITTER AS PHYTOREMEDIATION PROGRESSES IN A COPPER TAILINGS DAM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: A field study was conducted in this study and describes about the “Bacterial community characteristics and enzyme activities in Imperata cylindrica litter as phytoremediation progresses in a copper tailings dam”
Although. each part of the explained well, some basic information need to include for the more clarity of the manuscript.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: Introduction: Include the life span of Imperata cylindrical
Discuss how long its take to degrade litter of I. cylindrical in a control condition (without any contamination)
Discussion need to correlated the accumulation of metal in I. cylindrical with its degradation ability by microorganisms.
Also discuss the comparison of the results with control condition (without metal influence).


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: BACTERIAL COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND ENZYME ACTIVITIES IN IMPERATA CYLINDRICA LITTER AS PHYTOREMEDIATION PROGRESSES IN A COPPER TAILINGS DAM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: A few confusing lines that need to be improved in writing:
1. Line 141: the section contains both litter and soil properties, so change the title accordingly.
2. Line157-158: "A totally 43 OTUs were shared .." among two sub-dams but "the three sub-dams aired 119 common OTU"? How come the overlapped amount from three is more than that from two?
3. Line 160-161.
4. Throughout the manuscript, the authors mentioned "significant differences" many times, do they mean statistically significance? If so, please mentioned p-value as well.

Literature references:
1. Line 241: "which is consistent with a previous study" - what is consistent with the previous study? The sentences seems to convey that part of the study was covered by a previous study. Please revise. Additionally, the referenced publication can not be found.

Figures:
1. Figure 1 and 6. Why did the author report analysis on both the levels of class and families or families and genus? What additional information can be gained (please expand in the main text)?
2. Figure 2. Why did the author report four methods for bacterial diversity index? What's the difference in p-value with lowercase "a" v.s. "b"?
3. Figure 3. Please explain "stress" in the main text and why it represents "NMDS analysis results were considered well representative" (Line175).
4. Figure 4 and Line 180-181 "positively correlated to all diversity indexes" - I see negative correlation to Simpson index.
Experimental design: Methods:
Line 114-115. The authors used 0.2um filter to sterilize the sample before extracting DNA for 16s analysis. However, most bacteria can not be passed through 0.2um filter.

Line 125. Please explain more about sequence analysis and OTU classification.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: In general, the authors had performed intensive analysis on the litter and soil properties from three different sub-dams that covers different stages of phytoremediation progress. The reporting and analysis has incredible amount of details. However, some analysis tend to be repetitive (as mentioned above). I would recommend to consolidate the repetitive analysis and focus on the big picture.


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: BACTERIAL COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS AND ENZYME ACTIVITIES IN IMPERATA CYLINDRICA LITTER AS PHYTOREMEDIATION PROGRESSES IN A COPPER TAILINGS DAM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript # 47489
Title: Bacterial community characteristics and enzyme activities in Imperata cylindrica litter as phytoremediation progresses in a copper tailings dam.
Authors: Tong Jia, Tingyan Guo, Baofeng Chai

The manuscript is well written - clear, professional and articulate English has been used throughout. Sufficient background and rationale for the work has been included in the manuscript. The authors have used adequate statistical analysis and the results from the study exhibit merit in enhancing our understanding of the bacterial community structure in sites such as the ones used in the study.

I have the following comments about the manuscript, please see below.

1.	Based on the methods described, soil samples were collected only once in April 2019. Conclusions as mentioned are therefore based on samples from just one day of sampling of 18 soil samples. I am not convinced if such strong conclusions may be drawn based on a single sampling event. While I do understand that it might not have been possible to take further samples due to several restrictions we face as researchers, this limitation should be clearly indicated in the discussion section of the manuscript.

2.	More citations are required in introduction part of the manuscript. Please avoid making broad statements with only one citation to provide support. For example see below:

Line 42-43: add more citations to support this statement
Line 51-52: add more citations to support this statement
Line 64=65: add more citations to support this statement

3.	Lines 34-35: Are there additional studies that has been done on this? If so, please add some more.

4.	Lines 59-60: this is a run-on sentences, please rephrase this for better understanding.

5.	Methods, Lines 120-121: please provide more detail on PCR cycling conditions here. This should include final concentration of primers used, concentration of template DNA used in each reaction, and cycling program temperatures including annealing temperature and number of cycles run.

6.	Table 3, Enzyme activity over different years of phytoremediation: This table could be better represented as a figure.
Experimental design: Please see my full review in the basic reporting section.
Validity of the findings: Please see my full review in the basic reporting section.
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: HOW “DIRTY” IS THE DARK TRIAD? DARK CHARACTER PROFILES, SWEARING, AND SOCIOSEXUALITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article does not provide sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. In particular, it would be helpful to explicitly locate this work theoretically within the context of evolutionary psychology approaches to sexuality (with all the assumptions that this contains). Without explaining this to the reader, some of the text is difficult to follow – especially for a reader unfamiliar with this approach. For example, in the following text it is not clear what is meant by an ‘exploitative short-term mating strategy’ or ‘mate-value’:
75 dark traits are expected to use an exploitative short-term mating strategy that is associated with 76 strategies and tactics to avoid entangling commitments in mate-value
In addition, key terms are used interchangeably and without explanation within the background review of the literature. For example:
•	In what ways does promiscuous behaviour represent an ‘outlook of separation’ (line 61).
•	Why are these character traits labelled as ‘dark’ or ‘malevolent’ when they can also be conceptualised as include positive or socially useful qualities?
•	The malevolent character is also labelled as is labelled as ‘immature’ without explanation (line 59).
There are a set of value judgements about sexuality in operation throughout this paper which are not explored or articulated. For example, swearing and promiscuous sexual behaviour are both identified as ‘dirty’ behaviour without comment or explanation (line 113). However, these are not self-evidently ‘dirty’.
The paper would also benefit from a more clearly articulated rationale. Why is it important for us to know whether people with different combinations of personality/character traits engage in more swearing and/or view swearing as less offensive? Why is it important for us to know whether people with different combinations of personality/character traits are more willing to engage in sexual behaviours without commitment or closeness?
Experimental design: It is not clear whether this paper fits the remit of PeerJ to publish articles in Biological Sciences, Environmental Sciences, Medical Sciences, and Health Sciences. The authors do not explicitly connect their work to any of these areas.

It would be useful to provide some information about the psychometric properties of the different measures used.

The study has not been subject to ethical review as the author state that this is not required within Sweden for this type of study.
Validity of the findings: The discussion of the results would have benefited from interpretation in the light of the original research questions and the underlying theory.
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: HOW “DIRTY” IS THE DARK TRIAD? DARK CHARACTER PROFILES, SWEARING, AND SOCIOSEXUALITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The references in the text is not in accordance with references given in the reference section. There are very many discrepancies. Sometimes the reference is lacking in the text and sometimes it is lacking in the reference section. My guess is that something went wrong when writing the reference section that is easy to correct.

The reference to Garcia & González says 2017 in the text but 2016a in the reference section. It is difficult to find the reference in Time and Society since there is no issue. The reference was not found in a journal search between 2015 and 2017.
Experimental design: The purpose and objectives of the two studies are described, but it is difficult to discern a clear research question.

If the research question is the same as the purpose, it should be clarified.
Validity of the findings: The general discussion is well written and very interesting.

One suggestion is to describe the result of this study more clearly. The discussions under headings "result and discussion" for each studie could be more extensive.
Additional comments: Thank you for an interesting and well written study on the Dark Cube and the relation between the dark traits and promiscuous behavior.

The proposed replications may further deepen the knowledge of the dark triad. A comparison with a dark dyad instead of triad is also an interesting idea.


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: HOW “DIRTY” IS THE DARK TRIAD? DARK CHARACTER PROFILES, SWEARING, AND SOCIOSEXUALITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Comments on reference errors are corrected
Experimental design: The questions on research question and purpose are answered. .
Validity of the findings: The results are clearified and expanded and so is the discussion
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: AUDITORY PROCESSING IN THE ZEBRA FINCH MIDBRAIN: SINGLE UNIT RESPONSES AND EFFECT OF REARING EXPERIENCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper was well written and clear. I have only a few suggestions that I think should aid clarity.

With regard to the methods section.

	Currently, the measure or Response strength is after the discussion of Selectivity index and D prime though the Response strength is used in the calculation of Selectivity index and D prime.  This organization mirrors that in the results section.  I think, in the Methods section, Response strength should come before Selectivity and D prime so that the meaning of those calculations will be clearer to the reader.

	Currently, there is no comprehensive description of the terms in the equations provided.  This can lead to some confusion in reading the equations.  For example, in the calculation of D prime, there is a term: sigma^2 RSa.  This could be interpreted as, the variance of the distribution of the Response strength to stimulus A, or (as RSa is previously used for the Response strength (which is a mean value) to stimulus A), it could be interpreted as some variable, sigma^2 times the Response strength to stimulus A.  A single sentence following each equation defining terms would resolve any confusion.

	The methods section covering the GLMM is incomplete.  There should be an equation presented for the GLMM. It is confusing to try to reconstruct this equation from the text as written and a formal equation for the model that they are using would help dramatically.  Absent that, a pseudo-formula (perhaps that used in the software package to fit the model) would help clarify dramatically.
	Further, this section needs to describe the algorithm used to fit variable weights.  The method used can impact the results. There is generally no analytical solution to GLMMs and different approaches to fitting the model will impact the results. The analysis is not complete without clarity on how the model was fit. Additionally, the software package used to fit the GLMM should be indicated and a reference provided.
        Finally, all of the coefficients and their variances (where calculated) should be reported, not just the significant coefficients.  It is difficult to interpret the meaning of specific coefficients without information about all coefficients in a model especially if there are significant interaction terms as there are here.

	Throughout the first portion of the paper individual neurons are categorized into distinct classes, but, there is no statement of how those classes were defined or how individual neurons were categorized.  There should be a section in the Methods describing both in some detail.
Experimental design: I think the experimental design is sound.
Validity of the findings: The major conclusion of this paper is that different life experiences (and probably exposure to different tutor songs) results in different tuning of neurons in lower (MLd) auditory areas. This conclusion hinges on two main experimental results.  First, that birds (Zebra finches) who are cross fostered to parents of a different species (Bengalese finches) have an overall decrease in neural responsiveness (in MLd) to the auditory stimuli presented when compared to a cohort of birds reared by members of their same species.  Second, if you model the responsiveness of neurons in MLd to different stimuli using a GLMM you find that an interaction between rearing condition (reared by same species vs reared by a different species) and whether the song was heterospecific or conspecific.

For the first result to be believable, there must be a statistical test demonstrating that responsiveness really has changed.  From looking at the distributions in figure 9 it is likely that a statistical test will show a change between those distributions, but a test should be done.  If no parametric or non parametric test seems sensible, a monte-carlo re sampling test could be used.

For the second result to be believable all of the weights found in the process of modeling should be reported.  It is very difficult to interpret the meaning of a specific weight without information about the other fitted weights especially when one of the parameters is an interaction effect.  All the weights should be provided along with the other methodological details asked for above.
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: AUDITORY PROCESSING IN THE ZEBRA FINCH MIDBRAIN: SINGLE UNIT RESPONSES AND EFFECT OF REARING EXPERIENCE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Basic reporting
The writing and references are mostly clear and professional. I appreciate the detailed comparisons with similar studies in the introduction and discussion, including explanation of possible differences. The broad structure is also clear and most of the paper is 'self-contained'. However some aspects of structure and some figures and/or legends need improvement:

Major issues:
FIGURES: Most importantly, I don't see any figure supporting the conclusion (see review section 2 and 3)
WRITING/STRUCTURE:  The statistics are not easy to comprehend as they are written now. I'm familiar with GLMM but it's not really clear what exactly has been done (see comments in experimental design)

Minor issues:
FIGURES:
Figure legends are sometimes incomplete or labels are missing:
	-fig 1 please indicate what the grey arrows mean
	-fig 4 scale on right y-axis is missing
	-fig 5 The way I interpret the graph, it looks like B is the sustained signal and A the amplitude locked one. Please verify and adjust the legend accordingly
	-fig 7 some of the markers are missing/double (2x empty squares, 2x empty round)
        -fig 7&8 the comparison is shown between zf-zf for selectivity to CON and zf-cf selectivity to HET. I get the rationale, but what I would really like to see is a 4way-comparison. Therefore it would be clearer to include also selectivity of zf-zf to HET and zf-cf to CON
        -fig 10 great to include this figure, Please also indicate unit for RS (#spikes/sec above baseline)
STRUCTURE:
1) The structure is mostly good but some parts are a bit long in my opinion and there is some redundancy. For example: 229-230 describes criterion, line 243 again. Please remove the first one because second is more complete
2) Also occasionally there are some (seeming?) contradictions in the text:
	- I don't understand the parts in the data file and in discussion refering to inhibition, in the methods the authors write (line 238): "since units that show an inhibition as a result
of the auditory stimulus would not be included in the analysis
	-676-677 the authors state that descending pathways from RAcup do not enter MLD, in line 695: "Since descending inputs to MLd originating in the RAcup ...". I suggest to leave out the latter, since it's part of section 'conlusion' whereas there is no data to conclude anything in this respect.

3) Not always self-contained: Occasionally, there is referred to a doctoral thesis including more detail. Please include that info in this manuscript or leave it out all together. For example, in line 318 t0 320 in the results section. In this case I would leave this out since it's accounted for by the GLMM
4) A bit more info on why the authors wanted to perform this study and what they expected would be helpful. Was there reason to reconsider findings by Woolley et al 04? Did they want to replicate the results? There is no hypothesis or expectation in the introduction.
Experimental design: Replication studies are important and MLd has not often been studied at all, so the scope of the paper is relevant to neuroscientists and behavioural biologists. The general idea behind the design, cross-fostering, is an elegant approach to answer the research question and has been used before. Most of the methods have been described properly with sufficient detail. However, I have concerns about experimental design and statistics.

Major issues
Experimental design:
1) If I understand correctly, in this study there is a possible confound in experimental design: the housing during development is different for the two groups. ZF-ZF group is housed indoor in small cages (line 128, however) whereas the ZF-CF group was raised in outdoor in aviaries (line 137). In line 124 authors suggests ZF-ZF were raised in indoor aviaries, but I assume these are the parents, not the juveniles. Please confirm.

Housing in outdoor aviaries may be considered as enriched environment (especially auditory enrichment due to other environmental sounds including more species), which has been shown to affect neural responsiveness (for example DOI:10.1155/2018/5903720). In addition, in aviaries birds get more exercise, which can also change basic neuronal processing (van Praag et al., 2000, DOI: 10.1038/35044558).
Since the strongest differences in this study is between responses overall, this is an alternative explanation for the results that should be seriously considered. The conclusion about the interaction effect between song type (CON/HET) and rearing condition on response strength is less convincing (see comments about figures and statistics), but even if this interaction is present, it could still be explained by an overall decrease in selectivity, resulting in a smaller difference in response between CON and HET in ZF-CF birds.

This doesn't necessarily mean auditory experience with Bengalese finch song does not affect neural development as well, the two are not mutually exclusive, but the current study cannot distinguish between the two explanations.
However, there are two possible solutions:
1) The authors could rephrase the discussion and conclusion and the data would still be relevant, new and worth publishing. The discussion and conclusion should include the above-mentioned alternative explanation. Future research can help disentangle
2) The authors perform a control experiment to potentially rule out the potential confound: raising additional zf-zf finches in the outdoor aviary and compare them with (preferably new) cage-raise zf-zf, and/or raise zf-cf in cages. However, I don't know if this is still feasible under the same conditions as this study.

2) Potentially major issue:
Were zf-cf birds housed in the same aviary as zf-zf birds? The conclusion seems to suggest so " ...cross fostered zebra finches were present even though ZF-ZF and ZF-CF birds were housed in the same aviary as adults..." (line 685-686) However, this is not clear from the methods. Otherwise there is another confound: CON is familiar to zf-zf but not zf-cf. Any difference could then also be explained by familiarity rather than experience during development. If in the same aviary please change line 144 to: ... birds were finally transferred to an indoor aviary at the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, where they were housed with the zf-zf birds. And change 172 to : ... therefore familiar to both groups of tested birds.

Minor issues
Insufficient for replication:
-Please include:
-statistical software and version (including package if applicable)
-material used for sound recording of the stimuli
-the cage size the zebra finches were reared in,
-usually zebra finches are also provided with other supplements than just water and food, please including this too
Validity of the findings: 3. Validity of the Findings
As mentioned above, replication studies are important and data on MLd in songbirds is limited. However, the reason for replication is not clearly mentioned.
As far as I can determine (not my expertise) the electrophysiological measurements are performed correctly, sufficient animals have been tested and the general approach of statistics is good, avoiding pseudoreplication by nesting units within birds. However, I have my doubts about validity of the findings due to 2 possible confounds in the design, unclear statistics (SEE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN) and importantly I don't see any graphs clearly supporting the conclusion.

Major issues:
1) Fig 10 is good to include but it doesn't not show a clear difference between reversed and forward song, nor CON vs HET. Therefore another figure would be helpful. For example one showing lines between CON and HET for each individual or each unit (the latter might be too much to be able to read the graph, the authors would have to try this out) with separate panels for zf-zf and zf-cf (see for example https://nl.mathworks.com/help/stats/repeatedmeasuresmodel.plot.html)

2) Statistics:
The use of GLMM is appropriate for the current type of study and appreciated since this is rare in electrophysiology studies! Nesting of the units within random factor 'subject' is a good choice to control for pseudoreplication. However I have my doubts about the implementation. I'm familiar with such models in R but it looks like other software has been used (please mention!), which may be part of the confusion.
The reasons I have my doubts is that some aspects are not described clearly enough to judge if it's correct, and the fact that no graphs clearly support the conclusion. Response strength in fig 10 for CON in zf-zf looks slightly higher but, I would not suspect a significant result. Also the low p-value for forward vs reversed song and little difference in fig 10 is worrying. This may be just a matter of writing but just to be sure, it would be good to verify where the p-values are coming from:
-If I remember correctly p-values for factors or interactions in the model itself are not meaningful if the model as a whole is not, because it only indicates the contribution too the model. For example, if significant effect for direction is found, but the model as a whole is not different from a null-model, the factor direction 'significantly contributes' to a null-effect. Is the final model compared to a null-model? Otherwise that might explain high F-values and low p-values that are not visible. For more info please find a comprehensible tutorial here: http://www.bodowinter.com/tutorials.html and/or verify with a statistician.

-It is incorrect to leave out sex as a variable, since the difference between CON and HET is different between sexes (thus interaction), the two can influence the results differently (line 304 - 306). The authors could include it as a random factor though.
-Were the assumptions for the model met? (homoscedasticity etc. see tutorial above)
-Please also explain more about the nesting of individual songs, I would include them as random factor nested within song types, but I'm not sure that's what was done here. Was this tested in a separate model?
-Have post-hoc tests been performed? If so and/or two models were used, were corrections for multiple comparisons been applied?

Minor issues:
Data file:
A (not raw) data file is included and clearly structured. Only a bit more info would be helpful: I would split up the first column into bird name and unit number. Please also include in the description that response strength BestFrequency are included. And what is the unit of BF here? Does it indicate the actual frequency tone in kHz or the response strength?

I can imagine that raw recordings are too large to share, but the authors indicate that other data will be shared on other platforms. At what level of processing will this data be shared?
Additional comments: Apologies for the lengthy review! I hope you can take away some of my worries. Worst-case scenario, there is no difference between ZF-ZF and ZF-CF in response to CON and HET. In that case the data are still interesting and worth publishing because there is a clear general difference between ZF-ZF and ZF-CF MLd responsiveness and this replicates earlier findings by Woolley et al.2010. However, the data would be inconclusive as to what causes the difference: housing, tutoring or familiarity.


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: AUDITORY PROCESSING IN THE ZEBRA FINCH MIDBRAIN: SINGLE UNIT RESPONSES AND EFFECT OF REARING EXPERIENCE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revisions have addressed all of my concerns about basic reporting and I especially appreciate the comprehensive explanation of their use of GLMMs.  This type of model should be used more extensively in the field and I think the methodological description provided will facilitate the use of GLMMs by other researchers.
Experimental design: I think the experimental design is sound.  Reviewer 2 raised a valid concern  with regard to a confound between the impact of overall rearing environment  (indoor/outdoor rearing) and the specific experience of home rearing vs. cross fostering.  I think that the wording in the current draft sufficiently acknowledges this confound and also serves to prevent over-interpretation of the results.
Validity of the findings: The changes made to the analysis, especially the significant effort made to improve the GLMM analysis, have satisfied my concerns about validity of the primary findings.
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: AUDITORY PROCESSING IN THE ZEBRA FINCH MIDBRAIN: SINGLE UNIT RESPONSES AND EFFECT OF REARING EXPERIENCE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Apologies for the late reply.
The manuscript has greatly improved. Most of my questions have been answered satisfactorily. The new graphs that were added clearly contribute to the understanding of the manuscript and are now convincing. Thanks for also sharing the raw data.

Basic reporting
-The d-prime equation is missing a variance sign before RSb, apostrophe in wrong place. And shouldn’t RSa and RSb be meanRSa and mean RSb? (as in Doupe and Solis97?)
-Regarding the explanation below the equation: technically, d-prime is the discriminability/selectivity (not difference)

-There are a few difference between the track changes file the pdf. Two I notices:
	-in doc (not pdf) there is still 2 paragraphs on response strength
	-line 524 not complete in doc
There might be more so be careful with which version you work for the final version

-line 340 equation u in Zu not explained. Should be “ related to a fixed u” I assume?
Even more helpful would be something like:
X includes:  Bird category, song type (CON/HET), direction (FOR/REV), SongID, Bird       Category x CON/HET
Z includes factors: bird ID and unit within bird
Or alternatively something like this (I know I’m biased to R notation, alternatives are fine)
model<- glmm (Bird category * song type + direction + songID, random = 1|birdID/unit)
	where / means within bird

-line 370 HET=3R typo --> HET-3
Experimental design: Experimental design

The authors also explained the methods better, now one potential confound (familiarity) can be excluded. I appreciate they are more carefull with wording regarding rearing conditions vs cross-fostering, however I would prefer an explicit mention of this (shortly, one or two sencences is enough).  You could use your own wording in the response letter for example “  our data show a difference in response to the auditory stimuli as a result of rearing conditions – but we make no attempt at identifying which of the variables creates the difference between the two group of birds” or “ our data show a difference in response to the auditory stimuli as a result of rearing conditions, but we are not attributing the differences specifically to cross-fostering”
I think it’s more scientific to be open about this and it doesn’t devalue your study in any way. It is highly interesting or relevant.
Validity of the findings: Validity
I also appreciate the effort of explaining and improving the statistics and this looks convincing, only a few minor clarifications would be helpful.

-The paragraph on assumptions was a bit confusing to me: were normality and levene’s test tested on risiduals? To my understandig is generalized linear model per definition not normally distributed and assumptions are about risduals, if I remember correctly (the log transformation is performed by the link function in R, not sure how it woks in SAS)? (I would also find it hard to believe that Levene’s test is not significant, given the difference in variance visible in figure 10). Was heteroscedasticity excluded?

-Model comparison seems good, maybe explicitly mention null model comparison

-Table 5, why are there 2 t-values and 2 p-values for the LS means, aren’t comparisons between groups? (i.g. ZF-ZF CON vs ZF-ZF HET)?
Additional comments: I appreciate all the work that has been done and the manuscript really improved.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTIVENESS OF NON-LETHAL PREDATOR DETERRENTS TO REDUCE LIVESTOCK LOSSES TO LEOPARD ATTACKS WITHIN A MULTIPLE-USE LANDSCAPE OF THE HIMALAYAN REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Effectiveness of non-lethal predator deterrents to reduce livestock losses to leopard attacks within a multiple-use landscape of Himalaya
This is a nice and important piece of research done on leopards, using fox lights in India. The authors nicely compare the fox light efficiency in northern India and provide some amazing stats on their performances. I think the paper has the potential for using in conservation biology.
However, I have a few major concerns which I recommend to be considered in order to enhance the paper clarity and readership:
1.	The paper is exhaustively long, I had to finish the revision in a few sessions as I was not able to finish once. That will cause fewer readerships. There are redundant parts particularly in Discussion, which could be merged or removed. The discussion is already 4 pages with single line, and towards the end, it is becoming of more general recommendation to reduce conflict. In Results also too many numbers have been provided, while some should be summarized in tables, some do not make any difference if removed. So, my first advice is make your paper shorter and crispy
2.	My second concerns is about stats, I was wondering why the authors did not use GLMM? Based on the maps they provided, it seems that some villages are next to each other, so the paper can enjoy a GLMM analysis with nested structure of random effect, as auto correlation is likely in these data. Also, many Wilcoxon tests to compare means between control and experiment could be replaced with a single logistic regression with binary response variable. Also, it was not clear if model averaging between top scoring models was done.
3.	The paper has nicely highlighted its applicability to south Asian mountainous contexts, but is lacks proper connection with previous papers published on human-leopard conflict in south Asian mountains as well as India. I have highlighted a few in my suggestions. In current form, the paper has tried to compare its findings in the context of African carnivores or other large carnivores like puma or tigers. Instead it is desirable to first compare the results with other Asian leopard contexts, as they are expected to be the most relevant ones, particularly from mountainous regions.
Minor comments
L70 Latin names are needed when first appear in the ms
L87-92: All causes of conflict mentioned here are related to the environment and people. However, there are strong evidences showing that some features of leopard individuals are also responsible for conflict. I suggest the authors to enrich their arguments using these two papers. The first paper highlights the notion of “problem animals”, showing individuals disproportionally killing livestock. The second paper applied this notion to leopards using satellite telemetry, showing old age can be a motif for livestock depredation
Odden, J., Smith, M.E., Aanes, R. and Swenson, J.E., 1999. Large carnivores that kill livestock: do" problem individuals" really exist?. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 27(3), pp.698-705.
Farhadinia, M.S., Johnson, P.J., Hunter, L.T. and Macdonald, D.W., 2018. Persian leopard predation patterns and kill rates in the Iran–Turkmenistan borderland. Journal of Mammalogy, 99(3), pp.713-723.
L114: It is more related to study design, not here
L115-120: It would be more desirable to have some a priori predictions on the effect of husbandry practices and landscape features on the performance of fox lights.
L134-138 These latin names must follow the species name when first appear
L190-192 Shouldn’t this be the number 1? To be followed by two more hypotheses?
 L196 The role of altitude is not clear as why higher areas are more prone to livestock depredation? There is another paper showing that leopard kill livestock in lower elevations:
"Vertical relief facilitates spatial segregation of a high density large carnivore population." Oikos (2019).
L202 R should be cited properly (R Core Development …).
L202-204 Not clear what is count and what is binary? Kills are binary and number of livestock are count? Clarify please. Towards the end of this paragraph, I did not understand what the binary data was used for, as you used Poisson GLMM for count data.
L234 R version mentioned three times,  just once with proper citation is enough
L244 Why “about”?
L248 p value better to be as p>0.001
L237-250 All cases are described in a way that they all seem statistically significant, while the text should reveal which one has enough evidence and which one does not have. For example, the last sentence of the paragraph is better to be modified that there was no evidence for any temporal pattern of leopard depredation in control sites (X2,…). Please seek advice of similar papers to see how these results should appear
L247-250 Your research question here is Do day/night time depredation differ between control and experiment sites? If yes, you need to run one X2 test for both, not two independently as it related to a different research question. Please take this advice for other X2 tests between control and experiment sites
L251 Any dog killed by leopards?
L251-252 Are these number in related to the livestock abundance in those villages, or you have expected equal portions for each type of livestock? If the latter, that is wrong
L251-260 Please consider providing SD or SE for all means.
L258 Is this data needed? If not, please remove redundant data as your paper is already full of data.
L285 what is range after N here?
L285-286 So this is the key message of this paper, which shows no significant difference occur between control and experiments. So, your narration implies that there is a significant difference, while your stats do not support it. Please consider rewording and make sure that the reader gets that no evidence is available for different patterns between control and experiment.
L331 Latin name if this is their first appearance
L340 In your results, you did not present any data on dog depredation, therefore all these discussion about dogs as an attractant for leopards can be speculative. Please clarify if no dog was killed, and if that is true, please be careful with these speculations.
L344 Jacobson’s paper is on the global status of leopards, they have not collected any field data on leopard feeding ecology. Instead these papers can be used as they have obtained first hand data on dog predation by leopards in south Asia
Athreya, V., Odden, M., Linnell, J.D., Krishnaswamy, J. and Karanth, K.U., 2016. A cat among the dogs: leopard Panthera pardus diet in a human-dominated landscape in western Maharashtra, India. Oryx, 50(1), pp.156-162.
Shehzad, W., Nawaz, M.A., Pompanon, F., Coissac, E., Riaz, T., Shah, S.A. and Taberlet, P., 2015. Forest without prey: livestock sustain a leopard Panthera pardus population in Pakistan. Oryx, 49(2), pp.248-253.
L360 Talking about attractant, you mention that livestock loss is in proportion to herd size, therefore the larger herds lose more animals to leopards. I presume we cannot consider this as attractant because when an animal is killed higher than its proportion is when we can call it attractant. Simply leopards have killed more in correlation with the sheep abundance.
L415-416 Why do not you guarantee? Clarify please
L422 what do you mean by “better”?
Table 3: Why both AIC and AICc? One should be enough
Table 3 and 4, in Results, model numbers have been mentioned but here there is no model number.
Experimental design: My second concerns is about stats, I was wondering why the authors did not use GLMM? Based on the maps they provided, it seems that some villages are next to each other, so the paper can enjoy a GLMM analysis with nested structure of random effect, as auto correlation is likely in these data. Also, many Wilcoxon tests to compare means between control and experiment could be replaced with a single logistic regression with binary response variable. Also, it was not clear if model averaging between top scoring models was done.
Validity of the findings: Please see above
Additional comments: Please see the 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: EFFECTIVENESS OF NON-LETHAL PREDATOR DETERRENTS TO REDUCE LIVESTOCK LOSSES TO LEOPARD ATTACKS WITHIN A MULTIPLE-USE LANDSCAPE OF THE HIMALAYAN REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There is a lot of good science and writing in the MS. The work is commendable. The writing is professional and has excellent English.
Writing: There are issues with organization and clarity, and I have attempted to suggest solutions in the edited document.
Context/bibliography: References are generally good with only minor corrections suggested. Context is pretty good too, although more needs to be done in discussing 1) visual deterrents, and 2) herding/livestock keeping practices in the region.
Figures & tables; Raw data is shared and understandable. Tables are generally good - small suggestions noted. Figure 2 needs substantial work however - poor choice of colors (blue should be river for instance and too many similar colors),  and there are two maps but only one scale.
Self-contained: Needs work. The results are not linked back to hypotheses at all. No mention is made of hypotheses after Methods section.
Experimental design: This is original research with aims and scope that are appropriate for PeerJ.

The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful, and would fill a knowledge gap. However, there are multiple analyses within the MS and these need to be more carefully explained.

Investigation appears rigorous and performed ethically.

Methods are described well. But more information is needed in a few places (see edited word documents).
Validity of the findings: Validity of findings is where the gravest issues with the MS are. The underlying data is available.

However, the authors greatly overstate their findings. As far as I could understand, only one analyses actually tested the impact of hte deterrent in reducing livestock depredation, and it found the deterrent was not statistically significant. This was hidden in last paragraph of Results. Yet the Discussion and Conclusion are written as if the effectiveness of fox lights in this manner was unequivocally proven; they were not. The paper needs substantial re-working to provide better clarity about what their results state, and to not give conclusions that are not supported by their evidence. So the abstract, Discussion and conclusion need re-writing beyond what I've commented on in the edited document itself.
Additional comments: This is commendable science, important conservation work in a difficult poorly-studied region, and quite well-written. However, the major caveat is that the primary conclusion on the efficacy of fox-lights is not supported by the data or analysis I saw. The authors need to re-write the MS to ensure they are not overstating the importance of their work, or pushing an agenda rather than sticking to the results they obtained. That is the primary issue with this MS.

I have provided a lot of comments and suggested edits in the document, to assist with grammar and clarity. I hope these are helpful.

A few additional comments that need clarity and may not have been mentioned in the edited document:
 - there are many carnivores around, how did you know it was only leopard conflict? How ensure attack could be attributed to leopards?
 - You almost completely neglect to mention a primary issue with this kind of deterrent - efficacy over time and habitation of carnivores. You indicate the local guardians randomly turn on/off the fox lights but this needs more context. Also you need to mention this as a potential negative in the discussion.
 - In terms of analysis, presence of fox lights certainly doesn't completely prevent attacks on livestock, but did it change the number of incidents or size of the incident? Looking at the raw data, seems like places where deterrents were had only 1 or 2 deaths (if any), whereas locations with no fox lights had 4, 5 or more deaths. Was that a result of more attacks, or that a single attack resulted in more deaths?


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: EFFECTIVENESS OF NON-LETHAL PREDATOR DETERRENTS TO REDUCE LIVESTOCK LOSSES TO LEOPARD ATTACKS WITHIN A MULTIPLE-USE LANDSCAPE OF THE HIMALAYAN REGION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear professional English. Definitely improved since first draft.
Experimental design: Improved as well.
Validity of the findings: Substantially improved. The conclusions are now much better tied to the results of the study.
Additional comments: Title – recommended change to ‘of the Himalayan Mountains’ or Himalayan region...
L12 – recommended addition ‘with trophic cascades on ecosystems and questionable impacts on human-wildlife conflict.’ Would be good to double-check some studies on this topic.
L24 – what were the ‘community-based conservation initiatives’ that you mention? Seems like you implemented fox lights but that was it? I’m not sure that falls under ‘community-based conservation.’
L25 – this is a ‘large semi-natural landscape’ I think

Intro
L44-46 – who are ‘marginal’ livestock owners? Are they not very good? They have small herds? This sentence and line of reasoning needs better explanation and possibly a citation.
L53 – add comma after hence
L56-58 – as in the Abstract, you may also want to state the questionable effectiveness of the lethal measures as an additional deterrent from that method and positive of non-lethal methods.
L62 – audio or visual deterrents, physical barriers etc.
L67 – don’t forget the striped hyena!
L93 – I was under the impression that its not just older less-fit or sick/injured males but also young adolescent or dispersing males that are also conflict-prone
L118 – make this last sentence the first sentence of your next paragraph. It is the key reason you did this work! Don’t hide it.
L126-130 – clarify when fox lights vs lion lights have been tested in the various studies.
L132 – the meaning of the last sentence is unclear

Methods
L170 – it is unclear, did you simply inform people about fox lights or did you tell them about the importance of carnivores, their plight, the variety of non-lethal intervention measures and, importantly, instruct and/or train people to implement these measures? Was the only thing implemented by the villagers actually the fox lights or were other measures implemented?
L225 – I’m curious why the presence or absence of water (or distance to water/stream), and topographic complexity (aka topographic roughness or similar measures) were not considered?
L239 – Was # of households and/or # of people also considered here? How good a correlation is there between human presence and night-lights in this part of India?
L242 – Explain this concept better. Altitude would not necessarily impact ecology of predators, or higher elevations cause them to predate more on livestock. What do you think is behind this? Also, check citations again – Rostro-Garcia find it peaks between 1000 and 3000m and then goes back down. And Miller is just a review article – better to cite the original articles (which both happen to be from western Hemisphere…)  Personally I’d expect topographic ruggedness to be more important than mean elevation in most cases…

L312 – in discussion then, a suggestion would be installtion of lights that help prevent depredation at night and (presumably) better herding practices during the day could really minimize overall depredation events.
L315 – in this section you specifically mention some characteristics but do not mention variation in the vegetation characteristics (like % tree cover or dense forest etc.). Those could be reported too.

Discussion
L351 – it is ‘evidence-based results’ and ‘human-dominated landscapes’
L356 – add in the fact that there was significant decline in livestock depredation by leopard but no difference in leopard visitation or presence between the sites.
L359 – you found no support for hypotheses such as veg cover or open habitats on ‘livestock predation’ not on ‘efficacy of fox lights.’ Correct? Of the 3 hypotheses you list none mention any impact of socio-economic or landscape scale variables on the efficacy of fox lights.
L362 – livestock depredation was random in nature with respect to the variables you measured
L366 – again I’m unclear the link between your experiment with installing fox lights and link to ‘community-based conservation programs.’ To me they seem like different things entirely. You tested the efficacy of fox lights on reducing leopard depredation but I don’t see any connection to community-based conservation programs that do things like educational scholarships, awareness-raising, agriculture or livestock husbandry trainings etc. If there was stuff like that, then I’d expect those type of variables (i.e. adherence to improved livestock herding or building better corrals etc.) to have been measured and included in the models.
L369 – paragraph starting on L369 needs a topic sentence and better link from previous paragraph
L399 – we found no evidence of animal practices impacting predation events by leopards…
L409 – one of the best studies here is Lichtenfeld et al. 2015 ‘evidence-based…’
L416 - community-based conservation; community-based conflict approach (L420). Review for other instances where dashes are needed throughout the MS.
L419 – this is a semi-natural ecosystem
L428 – this paragraph sounds more like a concluding paragraph to me. Consider moving it down to last paragraph before Conclusions section.
L445 – Third, we couldn’t measure…
L455 – what is meant by ‘latitudinal and longitudinal’? Do you just mean studies should be conducted under varying conditions globally?
L460 – remove extra comma.
L460 – how is this work a community-based model? Our work can be successfully replicated…
L463 – ‘due to variation in animal behavior and environmental or social factors.’
L463 – ‘The majority of predator…’
L464 – ‘long-term’
L465 – hence,


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

Input:
Title: THE RULE-BASED INSENSITIVITY EFFECT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Dear authors,

Overall the research appears to be conducted in a systematic fashion and communicated in a similar fashion, which is good. I can see the value of this work for people interested in investigating the RBIE.

The feedback below I personally deem 'minor points' for you to take or leave as you see fit.

In abstract it is stated: “(2) there is no evidence to assume that psychological problems exacerbate the RBIE in adults” It is also concluded that the overall evidence base is a bit shaky due to methodological issues. Perhaps a technically more correct way to frame this conclusion is then - “(2) At present there is a lack of evidence to assume that psychological problems exacerbate the RBIE in adults”. I feel like this softer framing of the conclusion is more allowing for the potential for that there could be an effect there if more research is conducted in a more systematic fashion.

Doing the above would seem more in line with conclusion on lines 371-373 “We, therefore, strongly recommend that more work is conducted on the relationship between the RBIE and psychological problems to better inform clinical theory and treatment.”

Line 37-38. Usually people provide a page number with the reference when making direct quotes.

Line 40-52. I really liked how you provided the fully fleshed out clear and simple example in this paragraph as the quote that finished off the prior paragraph is a little vague. Nice work! I have a very minor suggestion that you can take or leave as you see fit, to slightly modify final sentence to be: “Under such circumstances, further behaviour indicating the rule-based insensitivity effect, is that participants provided with accurate instructions would be more inclined to stick to these instructions after the task-contingency change compared to when they did not receive such instructions.” I was left wondering if your example was based off an actual study, or if it was simply made up for explanation purposes. I could see how utilizing a specific simple example from a published study would have been useful here, if such an example exists. Actually, now I think about it, personally what I would have done is provided 1-3 fully fleshed out examples from published studies. This would have been in aid of 1. Helping explain what the RBIE is, 2. Helping the reader better understand methodologies used in this research space, and 3. Choosing some disparate examples to highlight how the RBIE has been applied to diverse rules and/or contexts.

Line 71. I assume “(3) how operationalizations of the RBIE” is instead meant to read something like “(3) how the RBIE has been operationalized in the literature”

Line 93. I liked that you had an exclusion criterion based on sample size. Even if the criteria was arguably fairly generous. Personally, I think 10 per group is too low for adequate confidence a study and I would have been more stringent, but that is just a personal opinion of mine and I am not suggesting any changes here.

 Lines 148-151. I assume a result was also classified as ‘negative’ if there was no statistically significant relationship found/reported by the study? At present it is worded only as results that are in the opposite direction. Also, in Table 4 the evidence for the RBIE is listed as ‘positive’ or ‘unclear’. This does not seem consistent with the ‘positive’ versus ‘negative’ terms used in text and so I found it a bit confusing.

Lines 281-285. Statement: “These votes indicated that the results of each of these 11 studies were positive. Furthermore, the results of the binomial test revealed that the probability of observing such findings in a sample of 11 studies is significantly larger than what would be expected by chance (p < .001).” The binomial test seems a little redundant here if all 11 studies appraised were positive… of course it is going to be ‘significant’. Something more interesting is that there is not one study with negative results… I can’t help but wonder if there is some publication bias at play here? That is, you have got all 11 studies with positive results because of the tendency of journals to preference the publication of statistically significant results over non-significant ones. I am assuming the issue of publication bias will come up in the discussion. *Okay, doesn’t look like this was not talked about in discussion section despite seeming relevant.

Lines 285-289. The reader is left wondering if that single study with the clinical sample reported positive or negative results. It wouldn’t hurt to briefly mention that at this point in the text?

Line 310. Tables 5 and 6 are largely full of question marks. I am left wondering if they are absolutely necessary and perhaps it would be better to state what was found in text without the need for tables. It just seems like the tables don’t provide enough information to be justified over a brief in-text summary. Maybe I am wrong here, I am not 100% sure to be honest, I suppose you could argue that it is consistent with the other tables and keeps things more systematic. I just make this comment as something for the authors to consider. There are already a lot of big tables in the manuscript… so perhaps the article would read a bit ‘cleaner’ (so to speak) without tables 5 and 6 (some brief in-text summary would need to be added to account for their omission of course)?

Lines 390-402. When talking about ‘conditional discrimination tasks’ providing description of a specific example from one of the published studies would have been useful here, I think. This paragraph is very general/vague and so unnecessarily difficult to follow.

General comment: The reader was given the impression that many of the studies reviewed used quite basic lab tasks that might have questionable ‘external validity’. That is, in everyday life following rules exists within quite dynamic and changing environments and contexts… whereas it seems in the research on this topic the studies are so highly controlled that it remains questionable whether the findings in the lab generalize to more ‘messy’ real-life contexts? I’m not totally sure if this observation is a good one as per one of my above comments there was a lack of detailed description of any specific studies within this manuscript. Despite the general well-written and systematic nature of the way the article is written, I found this lack of providing extra detail on some of the studies reviewed a little strange, to be honest.

General comment: Something hinted at in the discussion is that the 'rule based insensitivity effect' seems such a broad phenomenon and it seems unlikely that it would exist in all contexts (despite an arguably high [i.e., publication bias?] reporting of the prevalence. Perhaps discussion around this could be expanded and made clearer. The use of some specific examples from published studies would probably be useful.

General comment: Reader was left wondering what the general 'effect size' associated with the RBIE is? Is this something that is associated with a large impact on behaviour? Or small? Or somewhere in-between? I note that it was mentioned in the paper that not all studies report effect sizes to the point it could not be systematically evaluated. However, a little bit of discussion on this in the introduction and/or discussion sections would be a welcome addition in my opinion to provide the reader a better sense of how potentially 'powerful' the RBIE supposedly is.

Warm regards,
Shane Rogers