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: DIVERSE RESPONSES OF SYMBIODINIUM TYPES TO MENTHOL AND DCMU TREATMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This revision is much improved—thank you for addressing most of my concerns.  While I would still like to see a statistical analysis for the data presented in Table 3 to formally test for differences among species (as it is one of the key findings in of the experiment), I realize you have a small sample size and the effect is fairly obvious.  I’d personally run a few more trials to boost the numbers for an ANOVA, but I leave that choice to you.

Regarding the TRMP8 blast, I think you used a human nucleotide sequence to query the Symbiodinium nucleotide databases using a nucleotide blast (blastn).  Instead, you’d want to use a protein blast (blastx).  There’s likely far too much divergence between humans and Symbiodinium to get any decent nucleotide hits.  Instead, blastx will translate the human nucleotide sequence to an amino acid sequence, which is more likely to be conserved across distant taxa.  When I tried it there were no good hits to S. minutum, which supports the idea that TRMP8 is absent.  But there weren’t any good hits to S. microadriaticum or S. kawagutii either, so this may not explain the differences in ROS production among species.  It was worth checking but the results are inconclusive because you don’t have ROS data for the other two species so I’d probably leave the blast analysis out.

The rest of my comments are all minor text suggestions.

John Parkinson
Oregon State University

L38: Awkward grammar.  Do you mean “This study further confirmed that Symbiodinium have diverse photochemical responses to stress even within the same clade.”

L57: “coral host” to “coral hosts”

L58: “(reviewed in Weis 2008, from cnidarian host cells, is generally attributed” to “(reviewed by Weis 2008) from cnidarian host cells is generally attributed”

L81-84: It’s a bit strange to reference a result of this study in the introduction, but ok.

L98: “clades” to “types”

L104: “Symbiodinium was isolated” to “Symbiodinium were isolated”

L118: “were identified as Symbiodinium C1, C3, C15, D1a, and B1” to “were identified as Symbiodinium ITS2 types C1 (S. goreaui), C3, C15, D1a (S. trenchii), and B1 (S. minutum)” Sorry to nitpick on how you include species names, but I really think you want to make sure to link ITS2 type to the binomial when they are first introduced in the manuscript (excluding the abstract).

L127-128: reference Fitt et al. 2001 Coral Reefs for the normal/healthy Fv/Fm value

L145: “S. minimum” to “S. minutum”

L168: delete “data indicated that”

L176: “S. minimum” to “S. minutum”

L180: delete “Table 2 indicates that”

L182: delete “A statistical analysis suggested that”

L195: “S. minimum” to “S. minutum”

L198: delete “Table 3 indicates that”

L201: consider replacing “B1” with “S. minutum” just to be consistent.

L220: “observed to thermal tolerance” to “observed with respect to thermal tolerance”

L222: “expressions” to “expression”

L240: “Symbiodinium C clade” to “clade C Symbiodinium”

L244: “huge” to “large”

L244: “defense strategy to stress” to “defensive response to stress”

L245: “no ROS generation” to “the lack of ROS generation”

L249: “the most “stress-tolerant” nature of the D clade among Symbiodinium types” to “the stress-tolerant nature of members of Symbiodinium clade D”

L255: “symbiophagy (Dani et al. 2016) in certain Symbiodinium types” to “symbiophagy (Dani et al. 2016) in the hosts of certain Symbiodinium types”


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: DIVERSE RESPONSES OF SYMBIODINIUM TYPES TO MENTHOL AND DCMU TREATMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally, I am satisfied with the authors rebuttal to the concerns raised in the previous reviews. There are some spacing issues that need to be rectified (e.g. different hanging indent space, line 137), and font issues in the legend of table 2.

Lines 81-84, I am confused by this sentence – are these results from this current study? If so, it does not belong in the introduction, and if not, which study is it from?

Line 58 – missing parenthesis

Line 126 – delete one “the”

References – missing Davy et al 2012 reference
Experimental design: I am satisfied with the changes made following the previous review.
Validity of the findings: The new manuscript is improved in a number of sections here, especially if the TRPM8 homolog comparison can be included
Additional comments: This is much improved on the previous submission.


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: HARNESSING MTDNA VARIATION TO RESOLVE AMBIGUITY IN ‘REDFISH’ SOLD IN EUROPE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The scope is interesting sine the adequacy or not of COI universal code must be taken into account. A suitable genetic marker selection is a big concern in traceability issues, to assure the transparency across the complete food chain, and sustainibility.

Table 1 & 2 are very confused

In general the presenting of results is confused, including Fig 1 &2
Experimental design: Materials and Methods

Sequence analysis:

-line 135; subset of previously samples...which included (Shum et al, 2015): how many?
-line 143; see results??  in Mat&Meth section?? what do you mean?

In the analysis a number of previously published sequences have been included in the analysis. Include them in a table includeingthe reference etc...

Results:

line 160; Clarify and specify the meaning of "h" and "π" data
line 168-174; Percentages are confused:
30% I guess 12/41
70%  neither 27/41 nor 27/48 how do you calculate?
92% I guess 44/48
8% I guess 4/48
Please make easier the presentation of results. Improve Table 1 & 2 defining "ambigous results" in order to make understandable. Is very diffiult to identify the mislabeled samples
line 170; Define what is for authors one "ambiguous results"

In the species id you conclude that an unknow sample is shallow or deep (S. mentella). However, you conclude this with only 6 reference samples (Table 2) In my iponion you can not resolve this aspects with this reduced number of samples

Sequence analysis (Fig 1&2):

You can not included in the building of a NJ phylogenetic tree all samples including, in the same analysis, "market" and "blind/references" sequences. This fact produces a very important and significant bias. First, you must build a tree only with the reference samples and after doing this analysis you can include the unknown samples but "one by one" to resolve with accuracy the species i.d.

In Fig 2, you say that red group is S. mentella (shallow). Attending to Table 2 classification; B6, B19 and B23 are S. mentella (shallow) but none of these reference samples are aligned in the red branches, can you explain it?, I'm confused

Discussion:

line 216; (see below) where? be more specific
line 285; "visual eye", do you mean "attending to taxonomic keys"?? Please modify it
line 298; "alarming discovery"" This statement is to strong. You have analysed only 5 samples from UK!!!!  You demonstrate nothing with this small sampling size
Validity of the findings: Some statements are very ambitious and are not demonstrated with the findings
Additional comments: References can be improved. I miss a number of important references concerning to authentication of seafood products and the use of genetic markers.


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: HARNESSING MTDNA VARIATION TO RESOLVE AMBIGUITY IN ‘REDFISH’ SOLD IN EUROPE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper takes focused look at the identification and labeling of commercially exploited North Atlantic Sebastes species. It addresses the difficulties of genetic and morphological identification in a recently diverged group of fishery species, proposes an alternative marker (d-loop) to the COI standard in BOLD, and examines labeling accuracy in northern Europe. Overall, the paper is well-written and well-organized, and the figures and tables are good. I have a few minor grammatical changes (suggested below), and a few larger suggestions to expand the methods and discussion (suggested in appropriate subheadings). However, all of these are fairly minor, and with some revision I believe this manuscript meets PeerJ’s standards and would be a solid addition to the literature.

Specific comments:
I found it surprising that the authors made little reference to the issues inherent in Pacific Sebastes identification. There are very similar complications in this group, particularly with regard to vague commercial labeling of multiple species. A brief comparison between the Atlantic and Pacific groups would be a nice addition to the discussion, and help to broaden its context. The authors already reference a paper on this (Logan et al. 2008); it would be nice to see it discussed in a little more detail in the discussion.
Experimental design: The experimental design was generally fine. The authors did a nice job of laying out the difficulties and importance of identifying north Atlantic Sebastes species, and their sampling was good. Their inclusion of blind genotyping of 29 samples morphologically identified by outside experts was a particularly strong element of the study.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions were generally well-supported and the authors addressed the study’s limitations fairly. In particular, they clearly acknowledged the potential for hybridization to confound any approach based on mitochondrial markers.

Specific comments:
How many sequences listed as your four target species were present in GenBank and BOLD for d-loop / COI at the time of your search? I would like a bit more reassurance that the difference in identification between the databases wasn’t confounded by very different reference availability. Likewise, I would like to see a GenBank search for COI; this would allow more direct comparison between the databases. I do agree that the phylogenetics presented later suggest that d-loop is just a better marker for this group. However, since the paper directly compares the two databases, it would be helpful to have a more direct comparison and a brief discussion of the impact of sequence availability on database-specific results.

Deep-vs-shallow S. mentella: Is there really such a bright line between these groups? Your d-loop tree suggests a lot of diversity. Would like to see a little more discussion of what might be causing the ambiguity – eg, since it is classified as an “incipient” divide, is there potential ongoing introgression between “deep” and “shallow” S. mentella beyond occasional hybridization?
Additional comments: Figures 1 & 2: This is kind of a chronic issue with large trees, but it is pretty difficult to make out/interpret the sample names, even printed full-page. Would really like to see something done to improve the size and clarity of the names. More context on the sample names would also help – for example, including the blind sample morphological ID or given market name in the sample name.

Suggested grammatical changes:
L20: Change “comprises of” to “is comprised of”.
L38-39: Change “as well as monitoring” to “and monitoring”.
L41: Change “and the complex supply networks” to “and complex supply networks”.
L66: Change “is deposited” to “are deposited”.
L89: Change “respectively, 2)” to “respectively, and 2)”.
L91: Change “diversified” to “diverged”.
L136-137: Change “as well as shallow” to “and shallow”.
L157: Change “among four European” to “in four northern European”.
L182: Change “Both mitochondrial” to “The two mitochondrial”.
L226: Change “affected by” to “compromised by”.
L250: Change “and/or lacks the diagnostic polymorphisms to accurately identify them.” to “and/or a lack of diagnostic polymorphisms for identification.”
L265: Change “a good source of reference” to “a reliable reference”.
L270: Change “, in those groups known to hybridize” to “in hybridizing groups”.
L285: Change “by visual eye” to “visually”.
L341: Change “amounts” to “numbers”.


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: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CD UPTAKE AND TOLERANCE OF TWO ITALIAN RYEGRASS (LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) CULTIVARS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Basic Reporting
•	The submission must adhere to all PeerJ policies (see: 'Journal Policies').
•	The article must be written in English using clear and unambiguous text and must conform to professional standards of courtesy and expression.

The level of English used in this article is not good enough to be published. It should definitely be reviewed and rewritten by a native speaker with a scientific background. It cannot be published in this condition.

•	The article should include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced.

Short introduction: the introduction could be improved by providing more relevant background.

Also, specify the physiological stress markers you are going to address in your article.

•	The structure of the submitted article should conform to an acceptable format of ‘standard sections’ (see our Instructions for Authors for our suggested format). Significant departures in structure should be made only if they significantly improve clarity or conform to a discipline-specific custom.

Standard sections: OK

The results of the effect of Cd on plant mineral concentrations and TFs are badly structured and it is hard for the reader to comprehend. My advice is to split up the results for root, shoot and TF and discuss the cultivars separately for each of the minerals. It is not needed to introduce new titles, but you can work with paragraphs here.

•	Figures should be relevant to the content of the article, of sufficient resolution, and appropriately described and labeled.

The labels of the figures are incomplete. A part of the text is missing at the end.

Figure 3 also does not mention anything about the p-values or levels of significance, nor does it mention the nutrients (metals) shown in the graphs.

There is also no information about the error bars in each of the figures. Are they STDEV or SE or … ?

In some figures, there is only “g” as unit (for example in figure 3), where it should be “mg / g FW”).

The image quality of the graphs is OK.

•	The submission should be ‘self-contained,’ should represent an appropriate ‘unit of publication’, and should include all results relevant to the hypothesis. Coherent bodies of work should not be inappropriately subdivided merely to increase publication count.

In my opinion, the submission is self-contained. The paper informs me on the tolerance of two Italian ryegrass cultivars. It also addresses one mechanism to cope with the Cd stress.

The article has no revolutionary conclusions (in my opinion).
Experimental design: 2. Experimental Design

•	The submission must describe original primary research within the Aims & Scope of the Journal.

To my knowledge, it is original primary research.

•	The submission should clearly define the research question, which must be relevant and meaningful. The knowledge gap being investigated should be identified, and statements should be made as to how the study contributes to filling that gap.

No stated knowledge about the effect of Cd on Italian ryegrass in other literature. This article gives information about the effect of Cd on Italian ryegrass.

•	The investigation must have been conducted rigorously and to a high technical standard.

The number of replicates for each treatment is quite small. Still, the error bars are small. BUT: The authors do not indicate which calculation they have used for the error bars.

•	Methods should be described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator.

Information about the calculation of distribution proportion is not given.

Information about the correlation test is not given in M&M.

The formulas of the TFs and BCFs are incomplete. It is not stated whether Cd concentration, Cd accumulation, … is used for these calculations.

•	The research must have been conducted in conformity with the prevailing ethical standards in the field.

OK.
Validity of the findings: 3. Validity of the Findings

•	The data should be robust, statistically sound, and controlled.

Only 3 biological replicates for each treatment. Yet, they have achieved to obtain small error bars. BUT: The others do not indicate which calculation they have used for the error bars.

•	The data on which the conclusions are based must be provided or made available in an acceptable discipline-specific repository.

Data are supplied.

I did have insufficient time to check whether these data and calculations are correct.

•	The conclusions should be appropriately stated, should be connected to the original question investigated, and should be limited to those supported by the results.

Conclusion is in line with the research question.

•	Speculation is welcomed, but should be identified as such.

/

•	Decisions are not made based on any subjective determination of impact, degree of advance, novelty, being of interest to only a niche audience, etc.

Reconsider the use of Italian ryegrass for cultivation and phytoremediation.

Looking at fundamental knowledge about the Cd tolerance mechanisms is interesting.

If you want to look at these mechanisms for cultivation of Italian ryegrass for fodder, fuel, ... you should first consider the fact that it is grown on Cd contaminated soil.

The use of Italian ryegrass for phytoremediation should be reconsidered since accumulation levels in root and shoot are about the same.

For example, in contrast to maize, see:  Wang, Aiyun, Minyan Wang, Qi Liao, and Xiquan He. 2016. “Characterization of Cd Translocation and Accumulation in 19 Maize Cultivars Grown on Cd-Contaminated Soil: Implication of Maize Cultivar Selection for Minimal Risk to Human Health and for Phytoremediation.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23 (6): 5410–19. doi:10.1007/s11356-015-5781-z.

In this article, they have shown that maize accumulates about 80% in the straw and grain.

•	Replication experiments are encouraged (provided the rationale for the replication, and how it adds value to the literature, is clearly described); however, we do not allow the ‘pointless’ repetition of well known, widely accepted results.

No replication, since the authors state that it is not yet tested for their cultivars / Italian ryegrass.

•	Negative / inconclusive results are acceptable.

I would reconsider being positive about the cultivation purposes for Italian ryegrass (phytoremediation, fodder, …). You might want to add a negative advice for that. You could consider fundamental research concerning the mechanisms in tolerance, damage, uptake and transportation.
Additional comments: I have added the PDF with markings and annotations.

The red markings concern syntax errors. I have not marked all the syntax errors.

The orange markings are questions or remarks. The questions/remarks are added to these markings.

The large blue marking (of Effects of Cd on plant mineral concentrations and TFs) concerns a block of text which is hard to comprehend. I advise a new structure for that text in order to make it easier to comprehend.

If you cannot read these remarks with your pdf-viewer, please open the pdf with "Adobe Acrobat Reader" and open the remark tab. Please do read the remarks.

Also: In my opinion, Italian ryegrass is not suitable for phytoremediation or cultivation for fodder or fuel (on Cd contaminated soil) (based on your results about accumulation). Since I'm quite new in this field of research, I do advise you to seek out more peers and discuss this matter with them.

I do think your research is worth being published, since you compare a tolerant and a sensitive cultivar and their response to Cd. Maybe address their variation in response in the conclusion and be specific about it (mention the parameters you've measured).

I hope you find my review valuable and I also hope you are able to use this feedback in improving your 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: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CD UPTAKE AND TOLERANCE OF TWO ITALIAN RYEGRASS (LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) CULTIVARS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript describes the effect of Cd exposure in 2 Italian ryegrass cultivars with regard to Cd uptake and translocation as well as the sensitivity/tolerance characteristics of both cultivars. The authors performed an extensive study with plenty of data but at present there are some major remarks that should be addressed by the authors.

Concerning the English language, the manuscript should be carefully checked for grammatical errors, such as use of tenses, plural/singular... It is recommended to have the manuscript checked by a native English speaking person to improve the readability of the manuscript.
Experimental design: Whereas the authors want to investigate the underlying mechanisms of Cd responses in 2 different ryegrass cultivars in relation to biomass production and Cd uptake for phytoremediation purposes, a hydroponic setup might be questioned.
The authors should be careful with stating that high Cd accumulation occurs in hydroponics, this might definitely not be the case when plants are grown on Cd-contaminated soils. Extrapolation of lab results (controlled environmental setup) to field experiments is not straightforward. It is highly recommended to add an experiment on these cultivars grown on Cd-contaminated soils to confirm or not the possible extrapolation of the current data.

In the majority of the M&M section, the authors describe very well the methodology, only for Cd distribution proportion, a description is lacking. This should be added by the authors.
Validity of the findings: Although the authors performed a lot of work, the novelty of the manuscript is rather restricted as the analyses performed under different Cd exposures have been explored in multiple studies. Nevertheless, the work published on Lolium multiflorum is limited.

Although the figures are clear, the authors should add the statistical analysis in the figure legends (as was done for figure 1).

With respect to phytoremediation purposes, the current manuscript should be considered with care because hydroponics and metal uptake are completely different from field conditions on Cd-contaminated soils. The authors should revise this way of description of the context for there research questions.
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: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CD UPTAKE AND TOLERANCE OF TWO ITALIAN RYEGRASS (LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) CULTIVARS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: •	English language: OK, but need minor changes here and there (be sure to look at my specific remarks for the individual lines). The editorial editing from AJE greatly improved the readability.

•	Literature references: OK, sufficient.

•	Raw data:

o	raw_data1: translate foreign language + Re in first column is unclear + file is coupled to other file, please make file work on its own

o	raw_data2: OK

o	raw_data3: translate foreign language

o	raw_data4: name sheet 1

o	raw_data5: name sheet 1

o	raw_data6: translate foreign language

o	I was unable to find absorbance levels for NPT at 412 nm. I might have overlooked it.

•	Figures and tables:

o	Figure 1:
Isn’t it: “Duncan’s multiple range test”?
“(n = 3) of three replicates”  don’t they mean the same?

o	Figure 2:
Isn’t it: “Duncan’s multiple range test”?
 “(n = 3) of three replicates”  don’t they mean the same?

o	Figure 3:
Isn’t it: “Duncan’s multiple range test”?
 “(n = 3) of three replicates”  don’t they mean the same?
It would might help to add Zn, Fe, Mn and Mg above the graphs and Root concentration, Shoot concentration and TFs vertically to the left of the graphs. Just so the reader gets a quick overview of the contents of all the graphs.

o	Figure 4:
Isn’t it: “Duncan’s multiple range test”?
 “(n = 3) of three replicates”  don’t they mean the same?

o	Figure 5:
Isn’t it: “Duncan’s multiple range test”?
 “(n = 3) of three replicates”  don’t they mean the same?

o	Table 1:
DW, dry weight
Declare what the values mean (i.e. 153.73, 11.04, 38.32, …)
Isn’t it: “Duncan’s multiple range test”?

o	Table 2:
inhabitation?

o	Table 3:
Duncan…

o	Table 4:
OK
Experimental design: •	Identified knowledge gap: OK

•	Research question is relevant and meaningful.

•	High technical and ethical standard: OK

•	Methods: be sure to look at my specific remarks for the individual lines.
Validity of the findings: OK + be sure to look at my specific remarks for the individual lines.
Additional comments: Dear authors,

Your current article has improved a lot compared to the previous version. The text was clear and the level of English was very good (except for a few sentences).
Please consider the changes and adaptations which I suggested, but also feel free to argument why something should not be changed or adapted, since it is just my opinion.
The approach to a more fundamental report of the response of the two cultivars to Cd was an improvement and most of the discussion is well written.
I have chosen for a major revision, even though the revision needed is of a much smaller scale compared to the previous version. Since the article has changed a lot compared to the previous version, I would like to go through it once more after you have dealt with the remarks of the reviewers. By opting for a major revision, I get a chance to see how you interpreted my comments for improvement and where you do not agree (which of course is possible as well ! ).
Good luck and thank you for your effort.

Kind regards.

IMPORTANT:
I have specific remarks for individual lines. These remarks concern basic reporting, experimental design & methods and validity of the findings & discussion.

These remarks are:
Line 65: It is not just because a substance is toxic to plants, that plants have evolved mechanisms to cope with it.
Line 73: Cd-PC, this abbreviation is stated or explained elsewhere.
Line 121: “to the constant weight” --> the?
Line 134: “the middle part of 100 mg of fresh leaves” --> what do you mean?
Line 135: Link wave lengths to what you measure at these wave lengths
Line 139: What is extracted?
Line 142: What do you measure at these wave lengths?
Line 142: Don’t you just measure MDA as a parameter for lipid peroxidation. Here it seems like you have measured both.
Line 158: “some physiology parameters” --> to vague
Line 165 – 166: “biomass reductions with increasing Cd dose from 5 μM to 100 μM were more distinct in Harukaze (P<0.01). --> ANOVA Cdxcultivar is not significant, meaning that both cultivars do not react differently to the cadmium treatment. Cultivars are significantly different, but they already differ in starting weight, which might be the most important factor why the weight of the cultivars differs.
Line 173: Is it EC or IC50? I’m not sure. Please check.
Line 178-179: Please nuance! Idyll is not tolerant, but MORE tolerant to Cd compared to Harukaze.
Line 183: Why is it obvious? Sounds like you were expecting this or sounds like there is a specific reason for this.
Line 185: Correlation is significant? Table 4 shows correlation both cultivars taken together. Could it be interesting to check correlations for both cultivars separately?
Line 187: TFs --> TF
Line 211: Reduction is not significant
Line 217 – 219: More importantly: The 2 cultivars only respond significantly different for Fe and Mn in the root. There, the interaction of Cd and cultivar is significant. For the other parameters, there is no significant interaction, meaning there is no significantly different response.
Line 227: Inhibited or reduced? / replace: that --> the Chl a/b ratio
Line 234 – 240: The two-way ANOVA also showed a significant interaction, meaning that both cultivars responded significantly different to Cd treatments for NTP production in root and shoot.
Line 241: Is it interesting to add a correlation analysis for both cultivars separately? Or is this a bad idea?
Line 248 – 253: Please inform the reader of Cd concentrations in the crops mentioned.
Line 259 – 260: Biomass reduction and TI give the same information, yet they are handled as different parameters.
Line 262: Bad syntax.
Line 267 – 268: Can you add shortly how Cd diminishes the capacity for ROS removal?
Line 273: You report oxidative damage. Please specify --> oxidative damage: oxidation of lipids
Line 273 – 274: How can a reduction in biomass be linked to oxidative stress?
Line 294: Specify which cultivar has constant or increased Cd TF.
Line 302 – 305: For me, the second part of the sentence is a harder to comprehend (…, whose tendency was the opposite of NPT content.). It might be just me, but maybe you want to have another look at it.
Line 306 – 308: Just thinking out loud: If high NPT in Idyll promotes Cd sequestration and cause it stay in the root, then you would expect Idyll to have higher Cd concentrations in the root compared to Harukaze. This is not the case!	 The higher NPT content might protect, but maybe Idyll also is an excluder which does not take up and transport Cd easily. This is just a suggestion and I am not stating this is correct, but you might want to look into some more literature.
Also, could it be that a lower translocation of Cd and higher amounts of NPT in the shoot are beneficial for the photosynthetic pigments? This might lead to a better photosynthesis, more energy and maybe better stress response?
By making this reasoning, I am assuming a lot of stuff and maybe the connections are not that straight or even true... It just thinking out loud. Maybe you want to dig into some more literature and also think about it. Please don't feel obligated.
Line 310 – 311: Unclear sentence.


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: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CD UPTAKE AND TOLERANCE OF TWO ITALIAN RYEGRASS (LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) CULTIVARS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The resubmitted manuscript is of excellent English quality, which is a major improvement in relation to the initial submission. In addition, the authors addressed the research question in a different way, not from a phytoremediation perspective but rather from a Cd tolerance/sensitive perspective and the mechanism behind this observation, which is much better when using a hydroponical setup for fundamental research.
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: The manuscript improved a lot with regard to the initial submission.


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: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CD UPTAKE AND TOLERANCE OF TWO ITALIAN RYEGRASS (LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) CULTIVARS
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 136-137: Are the wavelengths of 665, 649 and 470 respectively for chlorophyll a, b and carotenoids? Would be nice if this is clear for the reader by using "respectively" if it is.

Line 143: To what substances do these wavelengths correspond?

Line 141: "extraction" sounds like you are extracting MDA, where actually MDA is reacting with TBA (if I'm not mistaken...).

Line 143-145: "Lipid peroxidation was estimated with the content of MDA that is thiobarbituric acid-reacting substances (TBARS) as described by Ali et al. (2014)." --> I know what you mean, but the sentence is unclear. A suggestion: "MDA content was estimated through a TBARS assay, as described by Ali et al. (2014)."
+ I would consider making this sentence the first sentence of the paragraph.

Line 175: IC50 is underlined.

Line 280-281: "The oxidative lipids" sounds strange.

Line 309-311: "In our study, Cd concentration ..., the tendency of which was the opposite of NTP content...". This sentence is unclear to me. You might want to consider rephrasing.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: In my opinion, using Cd contaminated biomass for biofuel might only be possible if filtering of the combustion gases takes place (or if Cd is not there in the biofuel after processing of the biomass). If not, isn't there a chance for rereleasing the Cd back into the environment during combustion of the Cd contaminated biofuel?

I enjoyed reviewing your article. Thank you for your effort in rewriting and considering my remarks.


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: GROWTH OF HYBRID OPEN ACCESS, 2009–2016
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a short report of a study that has attempted to estimate the increase in the numbers of hybrid OA journals and articles in the period 2009-2016. It is a fairly straight-foward account but in a number of places (highlighted with comments in the annotated PDF), the mode of expression could be clearer. In its present form, the manuscript is not an easy read. Greater clarity and attention to sentence structure will make it more accessible for an international audience.
Experimental design: The methods used to estimate numbers of hybrid OA journals and articles include a mix of requests to publishers, estimates derived from examination of publisher web-sites and information gathered from other similar studies. In some places the description of the methods could be clarified for the benefit of the reader (see annotated PDF for details).

The study aggregates estimates from 20 leading publishers (including the big five). It would be useful to know what is their total market share (in publishing and in OA).This would provide a useful sense of scale that cannot be derived from the numbers reported in Figures 1 and 2.
Validity of the findings: The estimates produce appear reasonable to me. However, what is lacking – and this is highlighted by the mention of OA mega-journals in the final paragraph of the discussion – is a fuller sense of context. What fraction of all OA articles (in repositories, in hybrid OA journals and in OA journals) are hybrid? This seems an important and relevant point, especially if one wants to understand the importance and the potential future of hybrid options (and given the concerns expressed by some national funders).

Overall also, I would like to see more references cited in support of some of the claims made (e.g. that authors perceive an APC of $3000 as 'high'; that starting hybrid options involves 'very low cost'; that hybrid APCs prices are 'rather uniform' - see annotated PDF). Otherwise, the tone risks becoming overly rhetorical.
Additional comments: No further 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: GROWTH OF HYBRID OPEN ACCESS, 2009–2016
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: (1) There is a problem with table two. The column headings do not match the data in the table for the the first two columns. This must be fixed.

(2) The author spends a lot of time in the methods discussing the challenges to collecting the full cadre of data that would be ideal for a study like this, and does an appropriate job conveying that because of the limitations the results are a lower bound. However, it is somewhat confusing to make sense of this in the method and I think that to address this the authors should include a THIRD table that lays out the methods used for each year of the study (and of course the citations where appropriate). This information is present in the text but I think it would be more clearly conveyed as a table that is organized by year.

Grammar  / Clarity -
- In the abstract the abbreviation OA is used but introduced. This can be done in line 10.
- In line 14 of the abstract what exactly “scattered” is referring to is unclear. Is it that the small numbers are scattered across many journals? This should be stated explicitly.
- Line 28 the “one” should be removed
- The sentence that starts on line 31 is awkward. The point of laying out the different types of OA is important and should be stated clearly. The sentence could be split into two sentences, the first that addresses the “timing” and the second that address the “read vs. re-use rights”.
- Comma after “but in addition” in line 45
- The sentence that starts on line 49 should be rewritten to “ Due to the price level of typically around $3,000 USD, which many authors and their institutions perceive as high, the uptake of the option is low, on average only a couple of percentages of eligible articles”
- Should Entemological Society of America on line 53 have its first letters uppercased?
- Line 59, “starting” should be removed
- Line 62, “Since” instead of “Starting from”
- Line 64, replace “very low cost” with inexpensive
- line 65, consider changing systems to platform
- line 67/68 - end sentence with “since the subscription revenue remains”
- line 90 - almost always or usually instead of “tend in particular”
- line 92 - Secondly,
- line 143 - it is unclear what is being refered to with “That share” on line 143. Is it what fraction of the number of hybrid-OA articles come from the major 5 publishers?
- line 189 - English should be adjusted to “from either personal funds, departmental funds, or external research grants”
- Sentence starting on line 194 - not clear whether the 3.8% average share refers to the percentage of total articles that are OA in a journal over a year or the fraction of journals that have atleast 1 OA article per year
- Sentence starting on line 203 — Not entirely sure if this meaning is correct but if not the sentences can be adjusted. “First, several leading research funders set up centralized funds to pay for APCs. Second, a new type of consortial electronic subscription license has been introduced in which APC costs are included in the price.”
Experimental design: (1) It is necessary to report the total number of article published by the journals along with the number of hybrid-OA articles. Without the total number of articles published we cannot distinguish between whether the rate of uptake has increased or whether the rate of uptake has remained the same but the total number of articles published has increased.

(2) The author mentions that PNAS is a unique publication in that close to 1/3 of its articles are hybrid open-access. This raises the concern that perhaps it is such an outlier compared to the other publishers/journal groups that is skewing the overall statistics.
Validity of the findings: The paper “Growth of hybrid open access, 2009-2016” provides an overview of the development of the hybrid open access sector of publishing and presents new data about both the number of journals that offer hybrid open access and the number of hybrid open access articles. The author does a good job conveying the challenges of acquiring the necessary data about the hybrid-OA sector. And given the clear challenges to acquiring this data, it is important that this work be published so that these numbers are available to the public.

My concerns related to this section covered in the sections above.
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: GROWTH OF HYBRID OPEN ACCESS, 2009–2016
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment, in general, this paper presents solid information regarding the Hybrid Open Access model that might be relevant to many scholars focusing on academic publishing.
Experimental design: This is a descriptive manuscript with interesting statistics which were obtained using data that is not public which makes it hard to replicate. I would negotiate with the publishers to also allow access to the underlying data.
Validity of the findings: Besides the fact the there is a growing number of publishers using the Hybrid Model which, in itself, is relevant, it lacks substance as to what the impact this phenomenon has in the publishing world as a whole.
Additional comments: It is a nice manuscript but a little more argumentation would make it even better.


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: GROWTH OF HYBRID OPEN ACCESS, 2009–2016
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Since this is a review of a revised manuscript I will confine my comments to a single section. Overall, I am satisfied that the author has addressed all the comments made on the first version of this article and I think it is now suitable for publication. There are one or two residual points – all minor – which I leave to the author's discretion. (For detailed see the comments in the attached manuscript file).
Experimental design: Please see above.
Validity of the findings: Please see 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: DOES SILVOAGROPECUARY LANDSCAPE FRAGMENTATION AFFECT THE GENETIC DIVERSITY OF THE SIGMODONTINE RODENT OLIGORYZOMYS LONGICAUDATUS?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No particular comments.
There are minor grammatical problems throughout the text that will require minimal corrections. One issue is a need for additional punctuation (commas) to divide sentences.
Experimental design: The study focuses on the effect of landscape fragmentation on the genetic structure of Oligoryzomys longicaudatus that acts as a main reservoir of Hantavirus in South America. They realized their sampling at a small scale (3.5km2) in a region constituted of different landscapes. One important concern of this study is the type of molecular marker that authors used (mtDNA). Even if they argue that, this marker can be used for population genetics studies, at this geographical scale, I am not confident about the obtained results. This represent a problem since other confounding factors can also have a major impact (such as demography, differences between male and female). Microsatellites markers should have been used to answer to this question. The authors also chose to sample Oligoryzomys populations during one season (during the period of low mobility). It would have been interesting to compare their results with the period of high mobility to see how landscape influences the genetic structure of this species.
Validity of the findings: The results of landscape analysis could be given in more details (explaining clearly figure 4). As isolation by resistance analysis is not significant why comparing it to least-cost path results.
Authors should discuss about the factors that cannot be identified using mitochondrial markers as it is more adapted to large scale studies and long evolutionary process.
Additional comments: In their manuscript, the authors highlight the importance of landscape genetic studies of reservoir species in order to better understand the viral circulation and risk of emergence. The purpose of this study is really interesting and could correspond to the scope of the "PeerJ".
A more detailed justification for the results and addition of those obtained by Ortiz (2016) would improve the manuscript.
The authors could add reference: Ortiz N, Polop FJ, Andreo VC, Provensal MC, Polop JJ, Gardenal CN, Gonzalez-Ittig RE. 2016. Genetic population structure of the long-tailed pygmy rice rat (Rodentia, Cricetidae) at different geographic scales in the Argentinean Patagonia. Journal of Zoology.
In the abstract :
Line 47: replace “hanta” by “hantavirus” and “contagion” line 49 by “emergence”.


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: DOES SILVOAGROPECUARY LANDSCAPE FRAGMENTATION AFFECT THE GENETIC DIVERSITY OF THE SIGMODONTINE RODENT OLIGORYZOMYS LONGICAUDATUS?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The objective of this paper is to evaluate the effects of landscape fragmentation and matrix features on the genetic diversity and structure of Oligoryzomys longicaudatus, a sigmodontine rodent species,  natural reservoir of Hantavirus in southern South America. The writing is simple and easy to understand. The theoretical framework is properly formulated and framed on the centrality of the issue. The references are appropriate and updated. More than 45% of the references correspond to the last 10 years. The article is correctly structured in its organization. The tables are self-explanatory and provide appropriate information. The figures are pertinent but I suggest that the metric scale be incorporated in Figure 1. This will allow a better interpretation of the distance relationship between the sampling sites  (patches) of O. longicaudatus. The results obtained in the study, although they contribute to describe the use of the environment by O. longicaudatus through the use of corridors that communicate the patches with the native forest, these have already been described in the bibliography. The most interesting contribution of the article is its methodology focused on the use of 3 distances (IBD, LCP and IBR) to describe the effect of the landscape matrix on the genetic structure of O. longicaudatus.
Experimental design: The experimental design is appropriate and the questions are addressed with original methodologies. The identification of the effect of the landscape matrix on the genetic structure of O. longicaudatus allows to evaluate the effect of landscape changes on the migration and connectivity of these populations of high epidemiological importance. Although the methodology in general is well explained I suggest that it is necessary to go into more detail in the description of the structure of the landscape. It is understood from the map legend that land use is classified into 6 different types of coverage but missing elements to interpret the layout of distances depending on each model. The methodology describes in detail the statistical package used and, from the technical point of view, the solution to certain difficulties in determining the distances. However, it is not clear how the environmental variables of each capture location are weighted in the sampling grid and how the data matrix was constructed to determine the different types of distances. Therefore, I suggest that the explanation be extended at this point in order to achieve a better interpretation of the results.
Validity of the findings: The results presented  indicate that O. longicaudatus shows high haplotype diversity, but a general low nucleotide diversity, suggesting recent differentiation and potential changes in population size. Although these findings are robust, it is not clear the interpretation of the differentiation in the genetic structure of the 2 clusters as show the significant LCP analysis. It is not interpreted from Figure 4A that the shortest paths traced for LCP are through grassland /shrubland to connect patches of native forest. The same difficulty arises from FIG. 4B in which it is not interpreted that the shortest paths by means of the IBR are that individuals are moving through native forest only, but through longest path. I suggest improving Figure 4 so that the differences between the traces obtained by the 2 approaches (LCP and IBR) can be more clearly observed. I would also recommend that data of average distances (or other variables) be included to justify in each case the alternative use that the species makes of the landscape elements, either from the matrix or from the corridors.
On the other hand, the authors interpret that the use that would make the species of grassland/shrubland as corridors could be explained from their diet. However, the captures were made in winter and in this time of the year the availability of seeds is limited by the plant's own phenology.
The authors conclude that, taking into account the effects of the surrounding matrix, O. longicaudatus individuals would preferably use grassland / shrubland to connect native forest patches. Although the conclusion is well established and relates to the original question I find certain limitations since it is not clear the interpretation of the results obtained from the analysis of the distance of least cost, on which it is based.
Additional comments: The subject matter  is of interest in the area of ecoepidemiology since it contributes to understand the spatial context of silvoagropecuary risk of Hantavirus contagion. Although it presents clarity in the objective of its investigation and good articulation between the conceptual framework and the development of its different sections, I consider that the results are partially supported by the data. I suggest that the article needs to specify, in more detail, the criteria used to characterize the landscape structure, to reformulate Figures 4 (A and B) in order to show differences in LCP and IBR tracings and to provide average distance data in order to interpret the differential use of the environment according to both analyzes. I believe that these modifications could contribute by giving greater reliability and validity of the results and to a greater support of the discussion.


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: DOES SILVOAGROPECUARY LANDSCAPE FRAGMENTATION AFFECT THE GENETIC DIVERSITY OF THE SIGMODONTINE RODENT OLIGORYZOMYS LONGICAUDATUS?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written, and structured, but, the English language should be improved.. Literature references are well selected. Enough background is given in relation to the problem being addressed. All appropriate raw data have been made available.
Experimental design: This paper reports a landscape genetic study of the sigmodontine Oligoryzomis longicaudatus (“Colilargo”) based on the analysis of 5 populations sampled in 5 patches located in a fragmented landscape with different types of soil use. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of landscape fragmentation on genetic diversity, and to investigate the most probable landscape characteristics of commuting “least-cost corridors” among patches The research question is well defined. The fact that the studied species is a reservoir of the Hantavirus emphasizes the importance of the results for regional sanitary controls, in order to reduce the risk of humans to contract HPS. However, data are neither robust enough nor statistically sound. The main conclusion drawn from the least-cost corridors used by this species is confusing because the results are not clearly presented. Besides, the statistical analysis should be improved.
Methods have been described with sufficient information to be reproducible by other investigators. However, the methodology used to describe geographic distribution patterns of genetic variation (i.e. GENELAND) was not appropriately chosen. Geneland is a statistical computer program for population genetics data analysis. Its main goal is to detect population structure in the form of systematic variation in allele frequency  by departure from Hardy-Weinberg and linkage equilibrium. Geneland requires individual multilocus genetic data that are optionally geo-referenced. It implements several models that use both geographic and genetic information to estimate the number of populations in a dataset and delineate their spatial organization (Guillot et al., 2005). In the present study, the authors use a single molecular marker, instead of multilocus data, thus preventing the assessment of allelic frequencies, which are necessary to detect departures from HW equilibrium. Furthermore, if each nucleotide position were considered as a different locus, then all positions would be linked and not in linkage equilibrium. This analysis should not have been performed with only one sequence marker.
Validity of the findings: With respect to the validity of the conclusions I have some doubts about the interpretation of the data.  They authors inferred correlations between geographic distances (calculated as IBD, LCP and IBR distances) with genetic distances through Mantel tests. They found that the only significant correlation was “genetic distance vs. least-coast distance”, and then, they calculated the shortest paths based on LCP and IBR. Based on these analyses, they concluded that the shortest path traced for LCP and IBR indicate that individuals of Oligorizomis are moving through “grassland/shrubland” and “native forests”, respectively, to connect patches of native forests. However, Figures 4 A and B do not show this difference. Instead, both figures show very similar results, with quicker paths occurring either across plantation forestries or native forests. This conclusion should be supported by providing better explanations and figures.

The authors apply the raster of land use only to show its distribution on a map with the least cost path superimposed. They do not use this variable to analyze the landscape resistance as a function of dispersal probabilities. Perhaps it would be appropriate to perform some kind of simulation analysis (i.e. CDPOP, Landguth and Cushman, 2010) that takes into account landscape heterogeneity,  to see if the pattern of distribution of genetic variability obtained with empirical studies, is similar to that  recovered from simulated data.
Additional comments: No comments.


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

Input:
Title: DOES SILVOAGROPECUARY LANDSCAPE FRAGMENTATION AFFECT THE GENETIC DIVERSITY OF THE SIGMODONTINE RODENT OLIGORYZOMYS LONGICAUDATUS?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript improved significantly its quality from the changes made.   The incorporation suggested in figure 1 of the metric scale as well as the palette of colors and the image in google earth undoubtedly facilitates the identification of the different environments and their interpretation.Likewise, the division into sections of data analysis orders its reading and facilitates its interpretation satisfactorily
Experimental design: The modifications made improve the interpretation of the results. The methodology was described in greater detail facilitating greater understanding and interpretation of the analyzes.
Validity of the findings: In general terms, the explanations included in this new version are consistent with the conclusions reached by the authors. The results have been discussed in greater depth and also,  the included bibliography contributes satisfactorily to improve the quality of the manuscript. However, since the data were taken in a given period of the year it is necessary to be discussed within that context. Therefore it should be clarified in the discussion that the interpretation that is being made corresponds to the period of less mobility of O. lonficaudatus since in the reproductive season similar results could not necessarily be observed.
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: DOES SILVOAGROPECUARY LANDSCAPE FRAGMENTATION AFFECT THE GENETIC DIVERSITY OF THE SIGMODONTINE RODENT OLIGORYZOMYS LONGICAUDATUS?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper reports a landscape genetic study of the sigmodontine Oligoryzomis longicaudatus (“Colilargo”) based on the analysis of 5 populations sampled in 5 patches located in a fragmented landscape with different types of soil use. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of landscape fragmentation on genetic diversity, and to investigate the most probable landscape characteristics of commuting “least-cost corridors” among patches The research question is well defined.
Experimental design: Although a single marker was included in the analysis, it shows enough variability as to reveal patterns of distribution of variability in the landscape. Geneland is not the best approach for this analysis. Authors would have to justify their inclusion, describing that mitochondrial sequences were treated as a single loci, with many allelles (i.e. haplotypes).
Validity of the findings: The fact that the studied species is a reservoir of the Hantavirus emphasizes the importance of the results for regional sanitary controls, in order to reduce the risk of humans to contract HPS
Additional comments: All suggestions made by the reviewers were properly adressed. Therefore, I have no further comments.


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

Input:
Title: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF THE MOTIVATIONAL AND HEALTH DYNAMICS OF INTERNET GAMING DISORDER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The present study recruited 5,777 American adults and applied self-determination theory to examine how motivational factors influence, and are influenced by, IGD and health across a six month period. The sample and the longitudinal design is very impressive. Overall, it is a very important article for this filed.
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. The authors should take "internet addiction test" into their consideration for the examination for the participants if they collected this score.
Validity of the findings: Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Additional comments: The present study recruited 5,777 American adults and applied self-determination theory to examine how motivational factors influence, and are influenced by, IGD and health across a six month period. The sample and the longitudinal design is very impressive. Methods described with sufficient detail & information. The results were robust and interesting. Overall, it is a very important article for this filed.


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

Input:
Title: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF THE MOTIVATIONAL AND HEALTH DYNAMICS OF INTERNET GAMING DISORDER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The current study offers a substantial advance in our knowledge and understanding of a complex and controversial disorder. Furthermore, the authors should be commended for taking an open science approach to the study, and pre-registering their analyses. In sum, I believe that this paper has a vitally important contribution to make to the IGD literature – not just in terms of the findings, but also as a model example of the way psychological experiments should be conducted.
Experimental design: The authors present here a large-scale study looking at the presence of Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) symptoms in a substantial sample of American participants, and apply self-determination theory to assess if and how presence of IGD affects health and behavioural outcomes over a six month period. The research is robust, the research questions are well-defined, and fill an important gap in the research literature.
Validity of the findings: The study presents some fascinating and novel findings. IGD appears to be disruptive of some health factors in terms of psychological need supports, but the authors present evidence of no direct effect of dysregulated gaming on health over time. While IGD symptoms appear to be moderately stable over the six month period, the authors in fact show evidence of a drop in problematic symptoms over that time – no one who met a diagnostic threshold at the start did so at the end. This finding has important consequences for the theoretical framework within which we consider IGD – currently, there is some debate as to whether it should be framed as either a substance abuse disorder, or as more of an impulse control disorder. Before we can make any headway in developing effective ways of assessing and treating IGD, this debate first needs to be settled.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF THE MOTIVATIONAL AND HEALTH DYNAMICS OF INTERNET GAMING DISORDER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The most important concern is the clarity of presentation of the many analyses. There are only two tables and two figures for the many analyses presented, and statistical estimates are presented in only one of these. Path analyses and SEM models are often reported with statistical estimates included. If possible, reporting the various path analyses in clearly-labeled and described figures would be useful. The reporting of fit statistics would be useful as well. Although the main model is described as a fully saturated model, the wording of that sentence (335) may make it appear as if this is a result the fit of the model rather than a property of saturated models by definition. This line would benefit from being reworded. Further discussion of modeling is covered in the Validity section.

Second, there are some instances of terminology that were unfamiliar or required some thought/research to understand. While psychological need satisfaction is well-known. I was unable to find many references to "need supports". For example, it appears in work by Deci and Ryan, but not in the works cited in the paper (around line 91). In addition, use of the term "need supports" in a sentence is a little confusing because the word "supports" is more often used as a verb. For these reasons, I would suggest the authors consider using the term “need satisfaction” or even reword sentences containing “need supports” to improve clarity. Likewise, “motivational dynamics” is another term that may not be easily understood outside this field. While these terms are certainly relevant and accepted within certain areas of study, the paper would be better understood by those outside of these areas if other language is used.
Experimental design: This paper uses a design common to survey studies. Any concerns are more related to reporting and validity and are covered in those sections.
Validity of the findings: One of the major strengths of this paper is the potential representativeness of this sample. However, external validity is a concern. Some properties of the sample make it seem less representative than expected. The mean age is 46, which seems high for an Internet gaming sample. Without performing calculations, it is difficult to tell the racial makeup of the sample, which is another important factor in determining representativeness. There is no information on socioeconomic status. The sample has a higher proportion of females than males; is that in line with expectations for a sample of Internet gamers? In understanding how the important results  of this study may relate to other populations of Internet gamers (e.g., younger, mostly male), it is important to have a little more explanation about the intent, recruitment and data collection in the original study and a critique of how the study sample may differ. A final note about the study procedure: the method of informed consent should be specified. What does it mean that there was a double opt-in?

The time period of the analysis is also a consideration, especially as it relates to the sample’s age. Would a 6-month period be adequate to capture causal effects, especially if the disorder itself is short-term in nature? Some mention of this potential problem would help contextualize the findings.

The reporting of analyses also brings up questions of validity. As stated above, the saturated model is described as having perfect fit, but this tells us nothing about the meaning or potential invalidity of the estimates as it is a property of a saturated model. Several methods can be used to evaluate the appropriateness of such models (see a standard text on structural equation modeling such as (Kline, 2010). If I understand correctly from the code, a multigroup analysis by sex was conducted. This would be an example of an alternative model that could be tested and reported. Another concern is how the use of FIML was conducted. More explanation of the steps involved in lavaan would be useful for those who are less familiar with this package. For example, the authors could specify, “The full information maximum likelihood  estimator was used in the lavaan package in R by …”

A final concern major consideration is the wording of one of the IGD indicators. Starting on line 255, the paper discusses the “distress” criterion of IGD. In fact, the wording of the IGD criterion is “clinically significant impairment or distress”. The self-report of distress may differ from the self-report of impairment, and the importance of this clinical judgment is, of course, a debate in the field. I would be especially interested to know if self-report of distress differed by sex or age group, for example.
Additional comments: This paper reports a very thorough analysis of representative longitudinal data on psychological needs, Internet gaming disorder and health using a well-researched and thoroughly developed rationale. The strengths of the study are its clearly-defined hypotheses, its transparency, and the connection of hypotheses and results. As the Introduction states the intent to bridge the gap in the literature between self-regulation and addiction, this reviewer reports from the perspective of a researcher trained in public health and addictions with suggestions for reporting that will make the strengths of the article more accessible to those in the biomedical sciences.

Overall, the authors have conducted a well-thought out study that would benefit from some improvements in reporting to clarify limitations related to sample and to the complex analyses. I have outlined other concerns or provided more information about the items summarized above in a line-by-line analysis below. It is certainly not necessary to respond to each line, however.

I welcome the chance to be involved in reviewing a revised version of this manuscript.

Line by line review
Line 64: Individual indicators in line with APA guidance- The word indicators has a specific statistical meaning. It would be better to use criteria (as they are referred to in the DSM) or symptoms. The word appears again in line 245 and other places.

Line 76: The reference provided refers to a very specific population, and thus may be overstated. Since there is also good support for the opposite (i.e., detrimental effects on populations) ,it would be better to find additional support for that conclusion  (e.g.,(Hofferth & Moon, 2012)) and to critique studies that find that time gaming is associated with harm at the population level (e.g., (Faulkner, Irving, Adlaf, & Turner, 2014; Festl, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2013). If the concern is a lack of longitudinal studies that provide additional support for causal determination, that also has conflicting evidence in the literature (e.g., (Gentile et al., 2011). With regard to the Scharkow et al. study in 2014, it’s also noteworthy that no longitudinal associations between PG and well being were found for adolescents.

Lines 78-82: These lines seem to be making the case that PG is caused by dysregulation, but the statement on line 82 is that it is “dysregulating”, implying that it causes dysregulation.

Line 91: I was initially confused by the term psychological need supports, as I have never seen this term in the biomedical literature. I did make a point of reviewing some of the cited articles, and I see that they use other terminology such as need satisfaction. I would recommend that if this article is meant to bridge the literature, terminology that is more straightforward would be easier to understand. Line 101 is another example of where the terminology makes the sentence a little confusing. Some alternatives might be “need satisfaction”, which seems more common in the SDT literature, or even rewording to remove jargon. For example, line 99-100 could be worded as “Having psychological needs satisfied is associated with better mental, physical and psychosocial health.”

114: A similar problem is reflected here, where the claim that Psychological Needs Reduce Dysregulation is confusing. I think it is having psychological needs met that reduces dysregulation.

144-147: In discussing the displacement of activities, this statement seems out of place.

155: Obsessive passion for video games? Internet games? Activities in general?

157: Gaming and Everyday Activities. While the previous section uses an SDT framework to discuss the potential mechanisms of effects of engagement on psychological needs, the section wants a framework. The authors might consider mentioning the displacement hypothesis (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007).  Another concern with this section is that it discusses the importance of social activities without providing a reason that reduced social activities might be associated with health. Social participation is a basic function of everyday life, and theories such as the stress buffering hypothesis (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983) might help support the importance of social activities for health.

175: Motivational dynamics is another term that is somewhat unclear at first.

220: From a public health perspective, it would be important to have more information about the sample and study. For instance, how was the survey conducted? Was it conducted online, by telephone or in person? How did the sample of Internet gamers compare to the overall sample? I notice that the average age is 46.2; how does this compare with studies using other population samples in this topic area? The reporting of race is concerning, as it is difficult to tell the representativeness without performing the necessary calculations to determine what percentage of the sample is White (2234/3146). Percentages should be included here.

235-243: Was informed consent provided, or was the double opt-in considered informed consent in some way?

255:  The wording of the proposed IGD definition is “ impairment or distress”. Obviously the impairment piece is another point of contention in the IGD debate, especially as the reliability of respondents to truthfully report impairment is called into question for any mental disorder.  The paper should address the discrepancy between the wording for this survey item and the requirement for “clinically significant impairment or distress” in the proposed IGD diagnosis.

279: Please include a sample question for those who are new to these scales.

328: I’m confused as to how the inclusion of T1 IGD scores contributes to FIML estimation when these variables are a part of the specified model.  Perhaps the sentence needs to be reworded to describe which other variables, if any, were also included that were associated with attrition.

335: Reporting of model fit. The results section describe the model as saturated and producing perfect fit with d.f.=0. Since saturated models by definition produce perfect fit, it is necessary to use other methods to assess whether the fit is in line with expectations. The authors might consider conducting hypothesis testing comparing their chosen model with other potential models, for example.

353: Small significant betas may result from the large sample size. It is good that they were consistent with the author’s predictions in terms of being in the appropriate direction, but what is the theoretical implication of a beta of magnitude 0.06? Expressing standardized betas in the form of change in expected outcome for standard deviation of the chosen indicator would make this more clear. (e.g., for every standard deviation change in X, Y was expected to increase by ___)  It also seems that at times that unstandardized betas are reported (e.g., Table 2).  This would be good to clarify with each set of models discussed, or report one or the other consistently. When development of a construct is the question, unstandardized estimates, including residual covariance, allow for a better understanding of heterogeneity in change and the ability of the model to explain relationships. This is another potential consideration.

390: I’m not sure, but it seems that “need supports correlates” might be a typo.

409: It doesn’t seem to me that 10+ years of the study of problematic online gaming (e.g (Kraut & Seay, 2007)), would qualify for being in the early stages. That’s not to say that the current state of the evidence is enough to correctly conceptualize a formal disorder. Nonetheless, I think it’s an overstatement to say that work is in an early stage.

Beginning on line 415: This paragraph has very important implications for IGD and similar diagnoses.
The finding that a diagnosis of IGD based on satisfying a number of criteria does not hold at 6 months implies that the 12-month time criterion may lead to brief periods of “disorder” being missed. Have there been other suggestions as to a relevant time period for IGD? This would be important to know and discuss. Also, the paper describes options for time periods of addictive disorders are chronic or episodic. From a more medical perspective, addictions are often seen as an “absorbent state” (as are other mental disorders) where individuals never truly recover, but suffer from occasional episodes.  Problems related to gaming might also represent a phase, however, which is more in line with the maladaptive coping hypothesis (Kardefelt Winther, 2014). In this case, rather than chronic or episodic, quickly resolving might be another possible way to describe problems. The potentially brief nature of disordered gaming also has implications for the 6-month lag in the current study. The authors are encouraged to discuss the implications for their finding in terms of the potential ephemeral nature of online gaming-related problems, how their sample may have influenced this finding in their analysis, and also how these may differ by populations.

470: I was not familiar with the word choiceful and had to look it up. I see it is British English, and while this is of course perfectly acceptable, I am still in favor of rewording to make it even more clear.

483: The paper states that IGD symptoms are linked to health “partly because they undermine need supports”, yet previous it seems that IGD symptoms were only indirectly linked to health. Some way to organize results more clearly (additional tables with clear description of models tested, e.g.) would be useful.

498-501: The literature cited here refers to samples of adolescents, yet the sample  in the study is of middle-aged adults. The authors should consider how mechanisms may differ in their sample.

555-556: “absence of supportive environments” has a much different connotation in the public health literature, speaking mainly to child development and a life course approach. My understanding is that motivational dynamics as studied here may the result of environments experienced during upbringing, but are not necessarily limited to this. That phrase may benefit from being reworded.

Figures: The results of the hypothesized model (the betas) would be much easier to understand if they were indicated in the path model rather than solely in the text.

Figure 1 note:  It is unclear which nested models were tested and how covariances were evaluated.


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

Input:
Title: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF THE MOTIVATIONAL AND HEALTH DYNAMICS OF INTERNET GAMING DISORDER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript describes a study of the motivational and health dynamics of Internet Gaming Disorder. The task was well controlled. The study applied self-determination theory to examine the relationship of  IGD, motivational factors and health across a six month period. The results confirmed that IGD indicators are stable and that they and basic psychological need supports have a reciprocal relationship over time. The need supports promoted health and served as a protective factor against IGD. This is an important topic and the question is of wide interest for researchers working in IGD.
In discussion relate to Internet addiction management, I will recommend to include 10 Hz rTMS can be used to treat addiction. Reference (1): Shen et al. 10-Hz Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Left Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Reduces Heroin Cue Craving in Long-Term Addicts. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Aug 1;80(3):e13-4.
(2) Transcranial magnetic stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex reduces cocaine use: A pilot study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2016 Jan;26(1):37-44.
In addiction, tDCS helps to treat addiction.
Reference: (1) Meng et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the frontal-parietal-temporal area attenuates smoking behavior. J Psychiatr Res. 2014 Jul;54:19-25
(2) Wang et al. Transcranial direct current stimulation of the frontal-parietal-temporal area attenuates cue-induced craving for heroin. J Psychiatr Res. 2016 Aug;79:1-3.
Experimental design: This study has clear description in the material and methods. The work conduct in conformity with the ethical standards of the field.
Validity of the findings: The statistical methods are used valid in this study.
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: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUSTAINED ATTENTION AND AEROBIC FITNESS IN A GROUP OF YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The present manuscript is relatively well write. However, several part need to be carefully reread to correct several inattention mistakes.
- Line 51: incongruent date and time
- Line 69-71: the sentence begin in english and finish in spanish
- Line 79: comments in spanish and annotation
References in the text should be check. There are several redundancy in name or bracket wrongly used line 73, 79, 317.

I am not relevant to judge the quality of English.

The working hypothesis could be detailed at the end of the introduction.

The table 1 is cited at page 7 but only insert in page 11.
Experimental design: The present study aimed to investigate the impact of aeobic fitness on sustained attention in young adults. A high-fit group and a low-fit group completed a 5' PVT task (two times, respectivelly before and after an oddball task) and a 27' oddball task.

Method:
Line 159: precise that the cognitve tasks were performed at rest.
Line 160: precise taht the incremental test was performed in order to to determine the aerobic fitness caracteristic of the subjects (i.e., VAT, VO2 at VAT, power at VAT).
The description of the VAT determination test should be presented in a separate paragraph like the 2 cognitive tasks, intitulated "VAT determination test" for exemple.
The sentence "The filled circumference was presented for 500 ms" make the description of the PVT confusing, I suggest to delete it or move it somewhere else in the paragraph (line 185 for example).
Line 198: Contrary to the PVT, you encourage your subjects to respond accurately, not quickly. Why? this could explained part of your results, especially the afct that you have no effect on RT in the oddball task. This need to be discuss.
Line 202: The authors indicate to late (line 208-209) that the oddball task contained 2 distinct blocks. This information shuld be given earlier (line 202). Did the subjects have a short break between the 2 blocks?
Validity of the findings: The results of the oddball task would be more clear if the results would be presented in two separated paragraphs. The first one concerning 1/ Hit trials and the second 2/the commission errors.
Line 238: precise that the interaction you are talking about is the fitness x TOT interaction.

Figure 1 and 2: please add symbols representing the significant effects on the graph. Change the title of the y-axes, respectively by "Traget trial accuracy" for the Fig 1 and "Non target trial accuracy" for the fig2.

Add the means in the text in the results section.

Line 256-258 should be move in the discussion section or deleted.

The results confirm that high-fit subjects performed better on the PVT task than low-fit subjects. However, no effect of TOT task and no interaction with aerobic fitness was observed. We could have expected a degradation of the perfomance over time (between pre and post PVT), at least for low-fit subjects. How do you explained that?

Line 295-297: reverse the sentence.

You should discuss the fact that the oddball task is perhaps not enough sensitive to highlight the effect of fitness on sustained attention. Moreover, the accuracy instructions given for this task in particular could have altered the results.

Line 315: change VO2 by VO2 at VAT.
Do you have any idea of a better predictor?
Additional comments: The present study is of interest, however some modifications are necessary before publication. I hope that this comments will be helpful.


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 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUSTAINED ATTENTION AND AEROBIC FITNESS IN A GROUP OF YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This current study examined the relationship between sustained attention and aerobic fitness in young adults using oddball and PVT cognitive tasks in young adults. Results indicated that higher-fit adults maintained response accuracy over time, while low-fit adults suffered a decline of response accuracy throughout the task, suggesting that higher fit adults have a great sustained attention. This manuscript was well written and the results were significant.

Minor change:

1. Line 70-71: please rewrite the sentence as it was not written in English.
2. Line 155: "approx" is not a complete word.
3. Line 210: "using 1-way between-groups design" seems not clear regarding of the proper description for statistical analysis.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments.
Additional comments: no comments


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

Input:
Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUSTAINED ATTENTION AND AEROBIC FITNESS IN A GROUP OF YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript focuses on the relationship between aerobic fitness and sustained attention assessed by a PVT and an oddball task emphasizing response time and accuracy, respectively. While I believe that this manuscript is interesting, there are a number of potential issues that should be addressed prior to this manuscript being considered for publication.

	Please make sure the format of in-text citation and reference is consistent throughout the manuscript as well as in line with PeerJ’s guideline. For example, be consistent in terms of whether capitalizing the first letter of each word in article and journal title in the reference section. Also, check in-text citation such as line 79 and 317.
	Some texts in the manuscript were not written in English (line 70, 79..). Please proofread and modify accordingly.
	I would recommend the authors to change the title given that the current title reads like only oddball task was used.
	Line 81: the authors may need to explain what were the neuroelectric indices for sustained attention or response preparation in Luque-Casado et al. (2016).
     Line 309: these two citations regarding brain activation during exercise are odd at here. Instead, the authors should cite prior research examining the effects of fitness or chronic participation in physical activity on structural and function adaptations in the brain.

Minor issues
1.	Some grammar errors need to be corrected such as line 6 in the abstract ("divided in" should be "divided into") and line 313 ("limit" should be "limits"). Please proofread or have a English native speaking colleague review the manuscript.
2.	Line 46: I would recommend the authors avoid stating “any type of information processing” as there may be processes that require little of sustained attention such as some bottom-up or automated processing.
3.	Line 51: there are irrelevant numbers at the end of the sentence.
4.	Line 197: it may be helpful to add “non-target” before “long line”.
Experimental design:      What is the unique contribution of this study? Why is it important to examine the relationship between aerobic fitness and sustained attention using an oddball task emphasizing accuracy? In other words, does response accuracy during an oddball task reflect one aspect of sustained attention that is different from RT during PVT? The authors may need to discuss why investigating the effect of fitness on accuracy sustained attention task is necessary for filling the knowledge gap in the field.
     Line 124: It is not clear why the authors adopted two blocks of 5 min PVT task separated by a 27 min oddball task. If the purpose of this study was to replicate Lique-Casado et al., (2013, 2016), why not used a 10-min block or a 60-min block? Please justify.
     Line 131: please report the effect size that was powered to be detected based on the sample size in the current study.
	Line 134: Were participants allocated to low- and high-fit groups according to the frequency of weekly training? Does the training mean sports training or physical activity? And how to define training and physical activity in terms of intensity? The description (line 134-138) may need to be modified for better clarity.

Minor issues
1.	Line 208: The authors may consider moving this sentence to the Oddball task section.
Validity of the findings:      Line 260: The significant fitness main effect on non-target trials does not support the selective improvement hypothesis discussed in line 302 given that high-fit participants outperformed their low-fit counterpart for both target and non-target trial types. The authors need to include trial type as a factor to test whether the beneficial effect of aerobic fitness on target trials is larger than that of non-target trials.
	The data from PVT did not show an impaired performance over time for both groups. Was PVT used in this study a valid measure of sustained attention?
	Line 321-322: Instead of their own belief, the authors should discuss what the existing literature found. For example, McMorris et al. (2016) and Voss et al. (2013) provided very comprehensive reviews regarding the possible mechanisms to account for the beneficial effects of chronic and acute physical activity on cognition.
	Line 289: the statement “this later findings supports the PVT as a suitable tool to measure group differences in terms of RT performance in a vigilance task involving high temporal uncertainty of target onset” is fine. However, such fitness main effect may be not due to modulation of sustained attention because RT was maintained over time in both low- and high-fit groups. The authors need to explain what is contributing to this fitness main effect on PVT performance and why it is not consistent with prior studies.
	It is not clear why the authors performed a correlational analysis among measures of aerobic fitness and sustained attention. Such analytical approach should generate similar results derived from factorial analyses in a cross-sectional study. It is strange that a fitness main effect was observed using factorial analyses but the correlation between fitness and measures of sustained attention is null. The related issues are below
I.	The result of the correlational analysis is problematic because it suggests that aerobic fitness has no impact on sustained attention, which is contrary to the results derived from the factorial analysis. If the authors intended to include both of these analyses, they may need to explain such discrepancy.
II.	It is not clear if aerobic fitness was correlated with the overall accuracy across block 1 and block 2 of the oddball task or with accuracy for each block separately.
III.	Line 315-317: the two points based on the null correlation are confusing. In this study, VO2 reflected aerobic fitness. The null correlation only suggests that VO2 is not a good predictor for sustained attention. Similarly, the null correlation suggests that aerobic fitness, which is essentially VO2, cannot explain sustained attention capacities. Regardless, the correlational analysis performed in this study cannot generate any conclusion related to the so-called cardiovascular hypothesis.
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: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUSTAINED ATTENTION AND AEROBIC FITNESS IN A GROUP OF YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have responded to all my comments. The manuscript has been greatly improved and deserves publication.


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

Input:
Title: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUSTAINED ATTENTION AND AEROBIC FITNESS IN A GROUP OF YOUNG ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.
Line 133: It may be helpful if the authors could cite studies that tested the reliability of short PVT in adults. If no such evidence exists, the authors may consider replacing “infants” by other terms that indicate children aged ~11 yr according to Wilson et al. (2010)

2.
To me, “mind reset” is a perfectly fine explanation for the lack of session effect in the PVT. However, another possibility is that the PVT (two 5’ blocks separated by oddball task) employed in the current manuscript was simply not demanding sustained attention/vigilance enough to induce the RT increment from the first to second block. If I understand correctly, line 284-287 might be intended to suggest that it is possible that PVT is a valid measure of sustained attention/vigilance even when time-on-task effect is not apparent or not observable. However, it may be helpful if the authors could explain more about this idea as well as the cited studies (e.g., Dorrian et al., 2005; Drummond et al., 2005; Lim & Dinges, 2008) with better clarity.

The authors then stated that “High-fit and low-fit participants appear to differ in their overall RT performance, but not in the effect of session. This would seem to nuance our statement of the superior vigilance capacities of high-fit participants.” I am not sure if the first sentence is based on prior studies or the current manuscript. If it’s referring to prior studies, please provide citations. If the sentence is based on the current study, it is redundant because the following sentence (Line 290-291) repeats the similar thing.

Thus, I would recommend revising the second half of this paragraph (line284-294) for better readability

3.
Please check the use of tense throughout the manuscript. For example, Line 101 Participants “were” asked; Line 227: Probability values “were” reported; Line 228: ANOVA “were” reported…
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: I commend for the authors' effort on addressing all of my concerns. This manuscript is substantially improved and can contribute to the literature. I believe this manuscript can be accepted for publication after the minor revisions listed above.