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 LEMUR BASELINE: HOW LEMURS COMPARE TO MONKEYS AND APES IN THE PRIMATE COGNITION TEST BATTERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written, the raw data are supplied, and the figures are relevant and serve to illustrate the data.
The PCBT has been replicated with chimpanzees (Hopkins et al., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.076 ). Given that only few studies used this test battery, I think this study should be mentioned.
Line 249: unclear what “control task” refers to in this context.
Line 322/323: the statement that there were no significant differences in the causality scale after excluding the tool use task does not appear to match table 4 (the Chimp – Mouse Lemur comparison). If the authors refer here to table 3: this table does not appear to include the causality scale without the tool use task.
Line 356: “causality scale” not “quantity scale”.
Table 2: the table does not show the cell with the “mouse lemur” label. The reporting of the 95% CI is confusing. There should be a lower and an upper value. Currently the impression is that there is only one value with two decimals.
Figure 1 - 3: how are outliers defined? Not sure what the authors mean by “hinges (whiskers)”. I think the ends of the box (defined as the interquartile range) should indicate the hinges (25th Percentile, 75th Percentile).
The dashed lines in the figures should be defined as well (chance level?). Why are the dashed lines shown in figure 1 but not in figure 3 (at least for the facets in which all tasks have the same chance value)? For the tool use task (Fig 1), there should be no chance level.
In which order were the tasks conducted?
Figure 1: Communication: Pointing: Ruffed lemurs: the outlier point appears to be shifted to left.
Figure 3: title of the lower right facet it missing.
Data file: the authors use commas as decimal separator and semicolons as column separator. I think this should be changed to a decimal point and comma as column separator. Additionally, a legend would be helpful (e.g., which conditions are included for each task). It would be valuable if the data could be provided in a more detailed format (i.e., including the conditions within each task).
It would be helpful if more details regarding test experience of the subjects could be added. Were they trained in pointing / object choice tasks before?
Stating the initial sample size (including any dropouts) in addition to the final (analysed) sample size would be useful. If there were no dropouts, it would be good to mention this in the methods section.
Experimental design: Line 188: It would useful to add the interobserver reliability for every task (e.g., in a table in the supplementary material).
Line 246, Supplementary material: Line 35 /36: “Individuals had to choose both cups correctly to count as a correct response.” Doesn’t that mean that the chance level here should be 2/3 * 1/3 = 2/9 and not 1/3 as indicated in Fig 1 and Table 2?
Supplementary material: line 56/57: “Individuals had to choose the reward-cup as first choice to count as a correct response.”  Does “reward-cup” refer to the cup where the reward ends up or to one of the two cups where the reward could have ended up (in double displacements)? If it is the cup, where the reward was actually located the maximal performance should be 2/3 and not 1 in the double displacement trials, correct? This might be relevant for the interpretation of the performance in this task.
Supplementary material: line 113/114: if an individual had ignored the quantities presented on the middle plates, they would have scored 10/14 trials correct, right? If that is the case, I wonder whether we can be certain that this task measures addition (rather than relative quantities). It would be interesting to examine how the subjects performed in the trials in which the addition resulted in a reversal of the location of the larger amount of food.
Line 258 and Supplementary material 247/247: Figure 1 gives the impression that there would be a chance level for the task “attentional state” but that does not seem to be the case. In Table 2, the authors do not specify a chance value for “attentional state” so it is unclear what the statement in line 258 refers to.
Validity of the findings: Line 232: details concerning assumption checks for the analyses should be reported somewhere. The authors note (line 234) that they used parametric and non-parametric analyses depending on the tasks. It would be helpful to mention how they made these decisions. Were the assumptions for the MANOVAs met (absence of multicollinearity for the dependent variables; are dependent variables multivariate normally distributed within each group of the independent variables?)?
Line 428-430: one could have made exactly the same argument about the spatial scale if the results had been the other way round (i.e. spatial cognition could be seen as “rather basal cognitive abilities” compared to causal / numerical cognition).
The authors refer to external validity towards the end of their manuscript. What about internal validity of the scales used to assess cognitive abilities? The authors correlate their personality and inhibitory control measures with their physical and social cognition tasks but they do not report correlations for their different physical and social cognition scales. Though this might not be the central focus of interest in this study it would be valuable examine the construct validity of the scales (e.g. to what extent are the conditions within the tool property scale correlated?). Previous research found only limited evidence for contextual repeatability / convergent validity in comparative cognitive research (e.g., Herrmann and Call, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2012; Cauchoix et al., Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2018; Voelter et al., Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2018).
Additional comments: In this study, the authors conducted the primate cognition test battery with three lemur species. I think this is a very valuable contribution to the literature given how few studies applied extensive test batteries in primate cognition research to data. The manuscript is clearly written in professional, unambiguous language. There are a number of questions I had regarding the analyses, particularly to what extent the assumptions of the statistical methods were met and regarding the chance level for some of the tasks. These points should be clarified upon before acceptance.

Line 134-140: One could make the point that these hypotheses are not necessarily mutually exclusive and different ecological and physiological factors might be linked to the evolution of cognitive abilities.
Line 454-456: I think the conclusion here is a bit too strong given the limited sample size of the current study (both in terms of individuals and species). It might be that with more power (a larger number of species) one would detect a correlation between cognitive abilities and brain size. Additionally, this study does not report any correlation analyses between brain size and cognitive ability.


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 LEMUR BASELINE: HOW LEMURS COMPARE TO MONKEYS AND APES IN THE PRIMATE COGNITION TEST BATTERY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 50
Further detail on what exactly the “enhanced cognitive skills” possessed by primates are would be beneficial from the perspective of readers who might take such a statement for granted without necessarily thinking through what it means.

Lines 79-80
Similarly, some examples on how cognitive tests when used across species can fail due to various aspects of their methodology would also likely be appreciated by several readers.

Line 101
I’m a bit skeptical of Schmitt et al.’s 2011 study if only because of the combination of three factors: a small sample size 13 M. fascicularis and 5 P. anubis), the large range of variation in how individuals from both species performed in some tasks, and how performance was close to 50% across several tasks. None of this is the fault of the author’s of the current study of course, but highlights how difficult research in this area can be. In addition, looking into Herrmann et al.’s paper first describing the PCTB showed that they (understandably) relied on a large population of captive/rescued apes that presumably have been interacting with human beings extensively. Hard to see how that wouldn’t affect their cognitive behavior, and Tomasello and Call made this very point in their 2004 commentary in Animal Cognition (“The role of humans in the cognitive development of apes revisited”) retrospectively looking at their previous research. Although children have also been interacting with human being extensively as well and perhaps a balanced comparison is being made!

Line 105
More of a suggestion for a stimulating book. If the possibility of varieties in social “styles” potentially being reflected in cognition/brain development is of interested I would highly recommend Jaak Panksepp’s book Affective Neuroscience. His circuit-based view of the brain, particularly it’s emotive centers, is sure to evoke some compelling thoughts in primatologists.

Line 122
Small grammatical/lexical suggestion: change “seems indicated” to “is warranted”

Line 125
Another small lexical suggestion: change “in the following” to “hereafter”

Line 130
Do the authors mean that the average sub-group size in ruffed lemurs is six individuals? The ruffed lemur communities at all three study sites covered by the studies the authors cite have well over 10 individuals. As ruffed lemur biologists have pointed out, one can’t call these socially dispersed communities groups in the strict sense but the sentence as currently written might mislead the reader. Apologies for being nit-picky!

Lines 200-208 (with suggested edits applying hereafter)
I would place the word “scale” after rather than before the type of scale being described e.g. space scale instead of scale space, quantity scale instead of scale quantity, etc.

Table 1 legend
I would suggest adding “Summary of the most important socio-ecological traits for the seven non-human primate species considered in the present study”

Table 2
I am not sure if this is a typographic error or a function of my being an American, but it seems that periods were used to separate confidence interval values here? Personally I was confused and easily mistook the pairs of numbers as being from a single value e.g. 51.58% for ruffed lemurs performance in the Space tasks. Perhaps add more space between the interval values?

Figures
Across all multi-panel figures, one can see that tick marks and axis labels are being covered by a figure’s horizontal or vertical neighbors, resulting in lines bridging the space between neighboring plots. If these figures were made in R using ggplot2, this can easily be avoided by removing the tick marks and axis labels for the relevant plots.

Figure 3
The Theory of Mind panel in the bottom right is lacking a title
Experimental design: Line 157
Would the authors consider making some of the recordings available as supplementary files? Readers (and the public) would surely get a kick out of seeing what administering the PCTM to these lemurs looked like.

Lines 200-208 (with suggested edits applying hereafter)
I would place the word “scale” after rather than before the type of scale being described e.g. space scale instead of scale space, quantity scale instead of scale quantity, etc.

Line 227
In the future, the authors may wish to consider presenting the raw, multiple-test adjusted results alongside results from creating simulated datasets modeling responses to the PCTB tasks as completely random (e.g. from a normal distribution centered on .5 with several different standard deviations) to estimate how robust their findings are to false positive rates. This seems especially pertinent given the common pattern of PCTB scale results being close to 50%.

Line 230
Similar simulations (or boostrapping/jack-knifing procedures) as suggested above can be used to estimate how robust the MANOVA and ANCOVA results are to variations in the sample sizes/characteristics of the covariates considered.
Validity of the findings: Lines 329 – 331
Is it possible to distinguish support for the general intelligence hypothesis from the ecological intelligence hypothesis here? Chimps and baboons range over larger areas than the other species being considered and this would likely select for better performance on the tasks of the space scale. Although, one would then expect, say, ruffed lemurs and ring-tailed lemurs to outperform mouse lemurs on this scale which they didn’t.

Figure 2 and Lines 364-378 (also relevant for Lines 435-444)
I’m grateful for the opportunity that the authors have presented readers like myself to see result for the same cognitive test applied across a wide range of species. One aspect that bears highlighting is just how surprised I was at the near-uniform performance of primates across the Social domain. Especially because they all hover quite closely to a 50% proportion correct. A few questions and comments come to mind which could also be applied to the Physical domain of cognitive tasks:

    1. Is this average value a meaningful quantity given that it summarizes scores on different tasks, that presumably have different underlying neurological mechanisms?
    2. One is tempted to see 50% as “no better than a coin flip” but that raises the question of what differences in performing better or worse on these tasks mean ecologically. What does scoring 60% along the social domain vs 40% translate to in the life of these primates? What are the potential benefits/costs?
    3. Could making the correct choices in these kinds of tasks 50% of the time actually be “good enough” for whatever the effects would be within an individual’s ecological environment?

Lines 386-404
Many have noted (e.g. Kummer and Goodall’s 1985 paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London “Conditions of innovative behavior in primates”) that replicating the ecological and motivational conditions under which primates would naturally be acting is likely key to really understanding their cognitive abilities. The tool use and social learning tasks in the PCTB, for example, are very much unlike any situation that the species studied would find themselves in. Brian Hare has plenty of published work demonstrating that chimpanzees, for example, perform better in theory of mind tasks when placed in a competitive environment.

Lines 405-414
Variation in brain size may not map onto variation in other functional aspects of the central nervous system. For example, it’s potentially telling that the only axis on the PCTB that chimpanzees dramatically outperformed macaques and baboons on in Schmitt et al.’s (2011) study were on tool use and one of the theory of mind tasks – both of which are cognitive dimensions heavily affected by motivation. The authors of the present study found similar results.

In their 2018 PNAS paper “A neurochemical hypothesis for the origin of hominids”, Raghanti and her colleagues found that chimpanzees and humans had elevated dopamine levels in two brain areas compared to Cebus, Macaca, Papio, and Gorilla individuals. Dopamine plays a substantial role in regulating motivational processes! I once more encourage the authors to read Affective Neuroscience.

I would also note that in the broad sense intelligence, whether general, ecological, social, etc., is an emergent property that I would be skeptical of being described well by the performance on individual tasks in the PCTB.

Line 455
The authors did a commendable job of viewing their results with humility up to this point. I would urge them to continue exercising that humility before stating in a factual sense that a direct correlation between brain size and “cognitive abilities” has been rejected by this study, given that whether the PCTB really measures cognitive abilities is, in my own opinion, an open question.
Additional comments: It was a pleasure reading a manuscript covering similar topics to my undergraduate honors thesis. I confess that my interests in primate cognition fall very short of expertise, but do hope that my forays into that realm combined with a more rigorous background in behavioral ecology yielded useful comments below.

The authors deserve applause for putting yet another cognitive battery to the test, especially for expanding it into Strepsirrhines. The manuscript is well-written and detailed, the methodology is sound in so far as a previously developed test is being used in a standardized way, and the results come with some potential surprises that will compel others in the field to dig deeper into Strepsirrhine cognition and also meditate on the measure of primate intelligence overall.

The authors are also humble in the discussion of their results and what the implications therein may be. It is here however, that the manuscript could benefit from some additional detail. While I know that we are wary of “hand-waving”, the authors are familiar enough with lemur behavior, ecology, and evolution, to give us a little more speculation as to why they found what they found. Especially in light of the general lack of support for the “general intelligence hypothesis”, many readers would appreciate the opportunity to hear more about why lemurs may exhibit their own kind of intelligence that is particularly well-suited for the environment and constellation of traits (if I may, I am a fan of the Lemur Syndrome) that make them stand apart from other primates.  Much of what I’ve just said is, however, personal preference and I would leave it up to the editor and authors to decide of the readership of PeerJ would benefit from the addition of these details.

Warm Regards,
Andrew J Zamora


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION AND EXPRESSION PROFILES OF CANDIDATE CHEMOSENSORY RECEPTORS IN HISTIA RHODOPE (LEPIDOPTERA: ZYGAENIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript of Yang et al. describes the annotation of candidate chemosensory receptors in an antennal transcriptome that has been previously published by the same authors (in March 2020). In this previous publication, authors only annotated soluble olfactory proteins and here, they describe the identification of chemoreceptors, based on the same RNAseq data. A major concern is that the origin of the transcriptome analyzed here is not well described in the introduction and material & methods (how has this transcriptome been obtained? In which publication is it described?) and raw data availability is not indicated, suggesting that RNAseq data (raw reads) have not been made available.

A short introduction describes the different chemosensory receptor genes studied here, and the biological model. However, the question behind this work is not really clear: authors talk about an evolutionary shift from olfactory to visual communication in diurnal moths such as H. rhodope, but there is no literature cited in the introduction to support this claim. Notably, H. rhodope uses pheromones for sex communication, so the “evolutionary shift” is not obvious. Appropriate references should be included, otherwise this shift should just be presented as a working hypothesis.

Concerning the English language, an additional check is mandatory, as there are a lot of badly written sentences (some are listed in my comments, but NOT ALL). This is especially the case in the discussion section.
Experimental design: As stated above, the research question is not clearly presented in the introduction. The present work is rather descriptive (identification of olfactory genes in an original insect model) so it may have been better to clearly explain that the objective of the study was to describe for the first time the chemoreceptor repertoire of a Zygaenidae species, a group of diurnal moths.

The experimental strategy followed (annotation of sequences in the reference transcriptome, quantification of gene expression using RNAseq, then qRT-PCR) is really classic for this kind of study. However the material & methods section lacks some essential information and some analyses should be redone using different methods. Below you will find several requests and suggestions, by order of importance:

1) For the qRT-PCR experiment, you have to detail the following steps: RNA extraction, RNA purity check and quantification, reverse transcription (kit, reaction conditions), amount of cDNA and reaction volume for the PCR… Please refer to the MIQE guidelines if necessary (Bustin et al 2009). The choice of the 10 OR genes tested also need to be justified, here it seems that they have been picked up randomly. Notably, that’s a pity that the two most interesting OR genes (OR14 and 30) have not been tested.

2) For the qRT-PCR, the choice of GAPDH as a reference gene has not been justified. Please explain how you selected this gene as the best reference, and if this choice has been described previously please cite the reference. This is especially important because you used only one reference gene, whereas it is usually recommended to use at least two.

3) Concerning primer efficiency, it is stated that “the specificity and the efficiency of each primer were validated before” but the methodology should be described (melting curves or gel for specificity? standard curves with 5-fold dilution series of a pool of cDNA for establishing primer efficiency?). Moreover, if you calculated primer efficiencies, then these values should be used for calculating expression levels, rather than just using the 2-ΔΔCt formula.

4) For the search of candidate chemoreceptor sequences, a blastx strategy was used. The blastx results were then searched by keywords. However, it is quite frequent to miss some chemoreceptors by doing so. For example, blast searches with IRs often return sequences named “glutamate receptor” or “Kainate/AMPA receptor” and not necessarily “ionotropic receptor”. For example, it is really surprising that no IR25a sequence is present in the Hrho antennal transcriptome. To ensure that no chemoreceptor sequence is missing in the annotation, this strategy should be completed by a search by domain (InterPro Scan for example) and/or by a tblastn search on the transcriptome, using available lepidopteran receptor amino acid sequences as queries.

5) The source of the reference transcriptome and the RNAseq reads used here is not clearly explained. From what I understand it has already been described in detail in another paper, but please include a minimum of detail (which tissues, how many repeats per sample, how many reads obtained, how many contigs in the reference transcriptome).

6) The tools used for aligning reads and calculating FPKM values are not indicated.

7) For the phylogeny, you did not describe how sequences have been aligned.

8) The OR phylogeny has not been rooted using Orco as an outgroup, the figure has to be redone.
Validity of the findings: In the OR phylogeny, a major finding is the lack of Hrho ORs belonging to the “classical” moth pheromone receptor clade, whereas two HrhoORs have been found in the “novel” PR lineage. This lack of ORs in the classical pheromone receptor clade should be clearly stated in the results section, and not only in the discussion.

The results of the IR phylogeny could be exploited a bit more, notably by reminding the function associated with each IR clade (IR75 > acid sensing, IR21a > cool sensing, IR40a > dry sensing, etc…).

Results of the qPCR experiment are not described in terms of statistical significance (the terms “Highly expressed” are not really informative). A comparison with FPKM values (is it congruent?) should also be included.
Additional comments: Minor comments:

l.56: two CANDIDATE pheromone receptors (…) a novel PR lineage.
l. 66: add a coma after a diurnal moth
l.70: affects (…) disturbs
l.87-88: the sentence should be rephrased
l.89: why “generally”?
l.90: cation channel
l.94: belong to the ionotropic glutamate receptor family
l. 96: antennal IRs also include IRs involved in thermo and hygrosenstion, not only olfaction
l.100: not only in odorant detection (IR76b is most probably involved in taste)
l.112-116: not necessary to cite all the species one after the other, it’s too long.
l.127: only one non-ditrysian moth, Eriocrania
l.129-134: this need to be rephrased. Moreover, there is no reference supporting a shift from olfactory to visual communication. Which article demonstrates an “olfactory related gene loss in diurnal insects ??”
l. 205-207: please rephrase
l.210-211: rephrase
l. 222: rephrase, I guess that all the IRs identified are not full-length
l.223: IRs do not have signal peptides
l. 224-225: rephrase
l. 235: same remark as above, all GRs are NOT complete
l. 237: what do you mean by “the other 3 chemoreceptor genes”? please rephrase
l. 239: analysis, not calculations
l. 283: separata
l. 305: “Orco genes are widely distributed”: what do you mean?
l. 351: “members of this group“: it’s not clear what you are talking about
l.360: antennae are not only involved in olfaction, but also in other sensory modalities. So, expression in antennae does not necessarily mean that these are olfactory ionotropic receptors.
l.366: in thermosensation and hygrosensation
Fig. 2 legend: it is written Ositrinia instead of Ostrinia


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION AND EXPRESSION PROFILES OF CANDIDATE CHEMOSENSORY RECEPTORS IN HISTIA RHODOPE (LEPIDOPTERA: ZYGAENIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: This study identified some chemosensory receptors genes of male and female of Histia rhodope Cramer from previously acquired H. rhodope antennal transcriptomic data. The authors used this data to curate olfactory-related genes and examine their sex-specific expression. Overall, this work is convincing: the methods used appear adequate, results seem reliable and the conclusions are supported by the data. This research also provides new genomic resources for this specie. However, some issues should be addressed before the manuscript merits to be published.

1. Please remove the full meaning of these abbreviations (OR, IR, GR, SNPS) on the Materials & Methods part (L115-157). I appreciate that the full meaning of these abbreviations is provided in the introduction and no needs to be provided again.

2. The authors have compared the sequences via Blastx and constructed phylogenetic tree, including the OR gene. Therefore, why the author named the OR genes numbered arbitrarily, while IR, GR and SNMP genes were named based on the highest scoring Blastx match from the NR database (L159-160)?

3. Why selected the GADPH gene as the reference gene? Is there any literature to support/report this? Other tissues of H. rhodope you selected were also use this gene to evaluate? Did the authors set any cDNA dilutions before qRT-PCR? This is necessary to check qPCR Standard Curve Slope to find the efficiency of the primer.

4. Line 296 – “H. rhodope is oligophagous pest and does not require additional olfactory proteins to perceive single host chemicals” Is this true? Please mention any supportive evidence (reference will do).

5. Line 322 – “However, according to FPKM values, HrhoOR14 exhibited male-biased expression while HrhoOR30 exhibited female-biased expression” is there any evidence based on sexual biased proved in the OR14 and 30?

6. Figure 4 and 5 – Suggestion – Phylogenetic tree is very small and hard to read the labeling. Increase the size and make it readable.

7. Figure 7 – Suggestion – If possible, enhance the resolution. It looks blurred.

8. Suggestion – Minor language check may need to correct the tense and spelling mistake in the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION AND EXPRESSION PROFILES OF CANDIDATE CHEMOSENSORY RECEPTORS IN HISTIA RHODOPE (LEPIDOPTERA: ZYGAENIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: All the comments made in my previous review have been addressed:
-English has been corrected
-the context in the introduction is now cleraly explained
-the origin of the RNAseq data is now clearly described
Experimental design: All my suggestions have been taken in consideration, and the material & methods now describes clearly what has been done
Validity of the findings: Exploitation of the results has been improved, as previously suggested
Additional comments: All the comments and suggestions I made in my previous review have been addressed. I have no other comments and think that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication in PeerJ.


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: DROUGHT STRESS STRENGTHENS THE LINK BETWEEN CHLOROPHYLL FLUORESCENCE PARAMETERS AND PHOTOSYNTHETIC TRAITS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Some text need to be improved to make sure it could be easily understood. Some literature are not cited appropriately.
Experimental design: How the research question can fill the knowledge gap is not well introduced. The experiment is well designed, but missing sufficient detail.
Validity of the findings: The results and conclusions are not well stated, but could be improved after revising.
Additional comments: Apparently, the authors wrote this manuscript very quick. The experiment is well designed, but some important information of the measurement are missing. You did have good results, but the results and  discussion are not well written.  The main comment is the authors should enhance their understanding about chlorophyll fluorescence, the title, results and discussion should be carefully revised. I would expect this manuscript can be improved by next version.

Introduction
L61: you did find some literature showed that drought had an effect on Fv/Fm, but what the mechanism behind it and how drought will/may affect chlorophyll fluorescence are not well addressed.
L77: why fluorescence ratio can reflect the photosynthetic activity?
L78: why they were negatively correlated with each other?

Materials and methods
L91: please add ‘Latin name’ of the plant species.
L96: How the leaf samples are selected, size, age (light green or dark green leaf), leaf position in the plant (e.g. top, middle or bottom), sunlit or shade, etc? All these factors will significantly affect the physiological variations, and fully unfold also does not mean mature leaves. Are same or different leaves used to conduct gas exchange and laser fluorescence measurement?
You had eight days measurements (I know it when I saw your figures), but this is not mentioned in the Materials and methods section. Are these days continuously or not? Did the plants keep the same conditions during the eight days experiment for each treatment or the drought level was enhanced day by day. What is the sample size? How many seedlings you had for each treatment? How many replicates you had for each measurement (e.g. gas exchange, chlorophyll content, etc.)?
L111: please add the company name and country of the instrument (LI-6800 PAM fluorometer) to measure Fv/Fm.
L118: which laser system (e.g. instrument, company, etc.)? which light source? What pulse and at which wavelength you used to induce fluorescence? Which optical filter you used for excluding the radiation to get fluorescence spectra in which range wavelength?
L121: what exactly integrating time you used for your experiment? What do you mean ‘optimal operating range’? how many spectra you sampled to estimate fluorescence?
L124: please clarify what is ‘SMA905 interface’?

Results
L151: you showed how ChlF ratio rather than ChlF in response to the drought.
L152: what the values (e.g., 1.01±0.12 μmol m-2 s-1) mean? I am confused what P value indicated exactly, do you mean An had a significant decrease in drought treatment across your eight days experiments, or during the whole experiment period An in drought treatment was significant higher than control. Apparently An was significant decreased in drought treatment in your eight days experiments. Please clarify all these (values of each variable in drought and control, and p values) for all the variables in these two paragraphs until line 163.
At day 3, a very high An was observed, together with a relatively high Fv/Fm. This is due to they were measured at the same leaf using LICOR. But corresponding changes in fluorescence ratio and total Chl were not found. Can you explain why a high An and Fv/Fm at day 3 were observed and also why others not (this can be discussed in discussion or describe in Materials and methods).
L190: you did not compare the correlations between photosynthesis and ChlF, but net photosynthesis rate with maximum photochemical efficiency and fluorescence ratio.  If you want to analysis ChlF, you should show the results of single band ChlF (e.g. ChlF at 685 nm or 740).

Discussion
Section 1: the discussion is very vague. Yes, under drought stress, stomatal, non-stomatal and Chl regulated the changes of photosynthesis, but why and how they contribute to photosynthetic activity are not discussed.
Section 2: the title of the section is not correct because the first paragraph is about Fv/Fm which is maximum photochemical efficiency or photosynthetic capacity, not fluorescence. In line 222, decrease in total Chl will weaken the photochemical activity, but is it mainly due to Chl contribute to the emission of Chl fluorescence? How you know PSII fluorescence contribute 95% of total Chl fluorescence emission (carefully cite the literature), note that how PSI and PSII contribute to the total fluorescence emission are very complicate and still not clearly understood now.
L227: why fluorescence ratio can evaluate the photosynthetic activity? I strongly recommend the authors to enhance the understanding what is the fluorescence and how and why fluorescence or parameters calculated from fluorescence can be used to indicate the photosynthesis, not only how good relationship found by other studies or how the stress changed the parameters, the reasons behind that are most important and should be discussed.  For example, the decrease of ChlF ratio in the drought treatment probably related to the decrease of Chl concentration, because less Chl means less emission of ChlF both in red and far-red band and at the same time less reabsorption of fluorescence in the red band, namely the relatively decrease level of ChlF emission in red band will be less than that in far-red band, leading to an increase of fluorescence ratio. You can find many literature showed that ChlF ratio could be a good indicator of chlorophyll content.
Section 3: again, you did not analysis the relationship between photosynthesis and ChlF. Please check this throughout the manuscript.

Figures:
Figure 1: are you sure this is a cucumber leaf? This diagram is really rough. I cannot see how you use laser induce the fluorescence and how this diagram can help the reader to easily understand the experiment design.
Figures 2-3: please clarify what P value indicates in the figure caption, (the difference between the two treatments?). Please also add what error bar indicates (standard error or standard deviation) and how many replicates were used to calculate the error bar
Figure 2b and L154: Again, which stage and condition of the leaf was selected as sample? From the changes of Fv/Fm, it seems that the sample was still not mature or had some stress at the beginning of the experiment. Ideally, Fv/Fm values for a health and mature leaf should at least 0.75. If the value during the peak growing season is less than 0.75, which means the plant may suffer from certain stress or photoinhibition, etc. Your Fv/Fm are mostly less than 0.75 in both two treatments. Thus, I doubt how you selected your samples, which should also be clarified in the Materials and methods section.
Figure 3d: Chlorophyll is an important factor to control the chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic activity, but why you only had four measurements? This should be described either here or in Materials and Methods section.
Figure 4: Please clarify each result of linear regression model belong to which treatment, either by different colors or adding descripting in the figure caption.

References: please carefully check the citation. For example, in line 62, Sperdouli & Moustakas 2012 is not the one should be cited here, and in lines 70-72 you talked results from Li  et al., 2008 but you cited another reference ‘Tribulato et al. 2019’ here.

Here are some recommended literature:
Buschmann 2007. Variability and application of the chlorophyll fluorescence emission ratio red/far-red of leaves.  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11120-007-9187-8
Lichtenthaler & Rinderle. The Role of Chlorophyll Fluorescence in The Detection of Stress Conditions in Plants.  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15476510.1988.10401466
Magney et al., 2017. Connecting active to passive ﬂuorescence with photosynthesis: a method for evaluating remote sensing measurements of Chl ﬂuorescence. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.14662


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: DROUGHT STRESS STRENGTHENS THE LINK BETWEEN CHLOROPHYLL FLUORESCENCE PARAMETERS AND PHOTOSYNTHETIC TRAITS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Many similar papers using chlorophyll fluorescence as an indicator of water stress in plants were already published ( doi.org/10.1007/BF00203643,  doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.00786, doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf064, DOI: 10.1093/jexbot/51.345.659 ).
The structure of the paper is good and acceptable. The amount and quality of the results presented and the style of the figures are very good.
The novelty of the paper is confusing, not very clear, however, the paper is interesting.
Experimental design: The main aim of the paper was to introduce the relationships among the parameters of chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis. The hypothesis is not very new, but the scientific problem is still actual.
Authors realized the pot experiments with cucumber, however, conclusions are hyperstimated.

The authors studied the effect of drought on photosynthetic parameters. They should write exactly, how they controlled/measured leaf water status.
Validity of the findings: It is needed to add information about number of repetitions of the measurements and experiments.
Overall, the results are presented in a comprehensible manner, with supporting charts and graphs to illustrate the statistical analyses.  In Discussion, the obtained results have not been sufficiently compared with analogical researches.
Additional comments: It has often been published that the maximum quantum yield of PSII photochemistry measured by the ratio Fv/Fm is not changed even by a severe drought. The decline of the photosynthesis during dehydration is attributed to stomatal closure.  Dehydration of the leaves during progressive drought up to 1,5 MPa had no effect on the quantum yield of CO2-dependent O2 evolution.
The gradual reduction of photochemical quenching (qP) and quantum efficiency (ΦPS2) was observed under drought stress while non-photochemical quenching increased. The maximum efficiency of PSII (Fv/Fm) was not affected by drought stress (doi.org/10.1007/s11099-008-0108-7).
On the other hand, chlorophyll fluorescence researchers use for the signalization of changes in photosynthetic apparatus under different harmful environmental situations (doi.org/10.3390/w12010289, DOI: 10.32615/ps.2019.179, DOI: 10.32615/ps.2020.014 ).
The paper should include more relevant references discussing characterizing changes in the physiological parameters of leaves, photosynthesis, and photochemistry derived from chlorophyll fluorescence measurements.

This study is well designed, and the data are presented in good quality. The understanding of mechanisms is limited, as it is restricted to papers that have a particular view and deliberately ignore alternatives and does not present a balanced view of the evidence.  You have to explain more about the mechanisms of plant sensitivity on water deficit.
The discussion lacks a bit in-depth.
I would have expected a more critical discussion of the results.
strengths:  good philosophy and analytical work
limitations: lack of novelty


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: DROUGHT STRESS STRENGTHENS THE LINK BETWEEN CHLOROPHYLL FLUORESCENCE PARAMETERS AND PHOTOSYNTHETIC TRAITS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This version of the manuscript has been improved a lot. The English should be carefully checked throughout.
Experimental design: It is well described now.
Validity of the findings: The results and conclusions have been improved after revising.
Additional comments: I only have few comments for the author.

(1). Please carefully check the English grammar for the whole manuscript.
For example, change ‘than’ to ‘that’ in L104,  remove second ‘to’ in L117, change ‘hypothesized’ to ‘hypothesize’ and ‘Photosynthesis’ to ‘photosynthesis’ in L118.
(2). L100-102: in L100 you described ‘The decrease of Chlt will increase the ChlF under stress conditions’, whereas in L315 it was ‘LD740 increases with increasing chlorophyll concentration’. Please clarify these converse logic.
The logic of the following sentence is also not correct. “the ratio of ChlF will increase, this is because of the reabsorption by far-red region of chlorophyll of radiation emitted by red region (Baker 2008; Buschmann 2007)”.
(3). L116: this study was based on leaf level  that should be clearly indicated both in Abstract and objectives.
(4). L173: the chlorophyll a fluorescence  are mainly emitted between 650 and 850 nm.
(5). L313-315: ChlF at red band can decrease or slightly increase (but the increased level is relatively smaller than at far-red band) due to the increased reabsorption of red ChlF  as the increase of the chlorophyll content. But I am not sure if it will be stabilized.


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: DROUGHT STRESS STRENGTHENS THE LINK BETWEEN CHLOROPHYLL FLUORESCENCE PARAMETERS AND PHOTOSYNTHETIC TRAITS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction provides a good understanding of the subject and its importance, with a significant quantity of information.
The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English partially.
The authors used good references and sufficient background for the experimental work. The literary structure is good.
Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.
Experimental design: The experimental methodology was appropriate and scientific, and the analyses were done correctly. The authors used very progressive techniques and protocols.
The results of the experiments provide novel data and the results and discussion section is deep and complex.
In Discussion, the obtained results have been sufficiently compared with analogical researches.
Validity of the findings: Overall, the study is of good quality and the results are innovative.
Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.
Additional comments: I checked the status, reviews, authors' comments on this paper.
The authors have made a great effort in introducing amendments to the manuscript in response to all the reviews. The quality of the manuscript has been significantly improved.
Results reported have not been published elsewhere.
Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.
Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.
The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English partially.
I am satisfied with the revised version, which in my opinion is ready for publication.


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

Input:
Title: A COMPARISON OF COMMON METRICS USED TO QUANTIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSERVATION INTERVENTIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is generally well written and provides a nice overview and background of evidence-based conservation, and the need for meta-research such as this to understand the best ways to reliably quantify the effectiveness of conservation interventions.

Other comments:
Line 90/91: The Conservation Evidence database can be cited directly. Sutherland, W. J., Taylor, N. G., MacFarlane, D., Amano, T., Christie, A. P., Dicks, L. V., ... & Petrovan, S. O. (2019). Building a tool to overcome barriers in research-implementation spaces: The Conservation Evidence database. Biological Conservation, 238, 108199.

A more general point is that more literature could be cited about ‘unbalanced designs’ in ecology – there is a lot of discussion around this in reference to BACI-type designs. This imbalance is related to different numbers of treatment and control samples. e.g. Fletcher, D. J., & Underwood, A. J. (2002). How to cope with negative estimates of components of variance in ecological field studies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 273(1), 89-95.

And some minor grammatical/spelling issues:

L113-114 This sentence just doesn’t make sense – possibly some words have been deleted?
L122 – replace ‘like’ (a bit colloquial) with ‘such as’
L127 – larger samples do not always improve the accuracy of effectiveness estimates, they improve their precision. Greater accuracy comes from removing biases.
L272 – is ‘acoustical’ the right word, is it not ‘acoustic’.
L326 – ‘The higher is the’ should be ‘The higher the’.
L327 – ‘the higher is the’ should be ‘the higher the’.
L327 – ‘magnitude’ instead of ‘scope’
L330 – should be ‘in the treatment sample compared to that in the control sample’
L350 – ‘a priori’ needs to be italicised
L352 – no need to say ‘it can be different in other sites’ as you’ve said ‘site-specific’.
L364 and conclusion – surely the advice should be to use standardised effect sizes regardless as they account for sample size? Yet you said that is not the aim of this study. Given in most cases the number of treatment and control samples are unlikely to be the same and it may be difficult to always ensure that these numbers are the same. The RR% and OR% do not take much extra effort to calculate given that all the data needed to calculate them should be available whether or not you are calculating the effectiveness using D%. Is it because you feel that D% is a more intuitive metric for practitioners to communicate? I feel it’s a little strange to show how biased the D% estimator can be and then fail to discourage its use? I can just see it’s easier for practitioners testing interventions to use the OR or RR and not be constrained by making the number of treatment and control samples the same.
Experimental design: Thankfully I was able to replicate the main results of the simulations in this paper in R with relative ease based on the methods described, but it would be nice if the author supplied code (either for R or SPSS) so that others could do the same.

Nevertheless I do have a few questions (these may be because I wasn’t able to exactly replicate some of the finer details of the analyses, or my errors, but should be checked):
I found significant effects on disparity distance |RR%-D%| for the following ratios: nt1/nc1 (as reported), nt1/nt, nc1/nc, nt2/nt, nc2/nc, and nt/nc. That made me concerned about L237-239.

I also found significant effects on disparity distance |RR%-OR%| and |RR%-D%|. This left me concerned about L236-237.

If code had been supplied to replicate these analyses it would have been a lot easier to check for possible errors and explicitly show what choices were made in analysis. Overall, I am not too concerned about these issues as I was able to replicate the main findings, which are the focus of the paper and make logical sense. I am just wondering about what these other possible comparisons might show and whether they are interesting to include in the manuscript. If code can be provided to show these are errors in replication then that would be ideal, and will be appreciated by readers who may want to go to conduct further research into this issue.

I must also praise the author on finding practical, real-world case studies to show how the simulation results apply in the real-world – that also gives the reader a lot more confidence in these findings and helps to drive home the point that D% is likely to under/overestimate RR% in different situations.

I think the research questions are well defined and the knowledge gap this fills is clear.
Validity of the findings: I must admit I am a bit surprised that these findings are not known already, given that they are relatively fundamental since RRs and ORs form the basis of so much of evidence-based medicine. I imagine these findings are illustrated or at least alluded to in books on meta-analysis (e.g. Koricheva, J., Gurevitch, J., & Mengersen, K. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press.).

Nevertheless, while these results aren’t necessarily that surprising to those working in quantitative fields of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, this doesn’t mean that this paper isn’t needed to reinforce the point that many conservationists and practitioners who conduct tests of interventions are unaware or poorly understand these basic statistical concepts and issues. This message is important and needs to be heard by those testing interventions and reporting metrics of effectiveness for conservation studies – if studies are not designed properly, or with due consideration to the metric used, then their reported results will be misleading to readers, or hard for those in evidence synthesis to convert into standardised effect sizes (e.g. ORs and RRs). Accurate reporting of sample sizes would help a lot and could be mentioned in the discussion. I also think the paper also illustrates the point that evidence-based conservation is still playing catch-up with evidence-based medicine – maybe more could be made of that point in the discussion.

However, as I said previously, I feel the fact that in the conclusions you do not discourage the use of D%, or at least the presentation of OR% and RR% alongside it in all studies, a little strange given your findings. I think the discussion and conclusion can be improved upon prior to acceptance to iron out these messages.
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 COMPARISON OF COMMON METRICS USED TO QUANTIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSERVATION INTERVENTIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well structured and is logical and coherent. The central idea (and its wider relevance) is introduced clearly and directly. The study design is then presented and the manuscript flows well from there. The manuscript is well thought out and pitched and is clear and simple to follow.
It uses up-to-date literature from across disciplines and across the globe. The use of references is comprehensive; I did not see any obvious omissions.
The figures and tables are appropriate and well constructed. The raw data is notably accessible and clear.
The use of English is professional throughout. In a small number of cases I spotted the possibility to improve the English expression and I have included these suggestions on the manuscript itself.
Experimental design: The manuscript presents the results of original research that fits the Aims and Scope of the journal well. It is primarily of relevance in Biological and Environmental Science but, in the Introduction, draws context thoughtfully from Medical research.
The study is, in some respects, simple. I use that term here as a positive. The research question is clearcut, relevant and meaningful. The reason for undertaking the study is ultimately to increase conservation outcomes from management interventions. The study aims to do that by ensuring that studies are meaningfully designed and analysed by those wanting to undertake management interventions. The study provides an important way forward in this regard.
The design is rigorous with both a theoretical and a practical component. The analysis is targeted, clear and rigorous. It is easy to follow and the results are understandable to a wide audience. This research will be easy to replicate. The interpretations flow from the results in a straight-forward manner.
Validity of the findings: The underlying data are available and have been put together in a way that is easy to follow. The analysis would be easy to replicate.
The conclusions are tightly linked to the findings of the analysis and the outcomes are clear and straightforward. The Discussion is free of speculation. Overall the work holds together very nicely.
Additional comments: A couple of minor points that I suggest to think about covering in the revision.
First, although Hedges' d is mentioned in the Introduction it doesn't appear to come up again. Please include a brief justification for not considering it further.
Second, some more information as to how the four case studies were chosen will be helpful. It is mentioned that they were chosen at random but how was this achieved?


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 HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE OF SYRIAN REFUGEE WOMEN IN THEIR REPRODUCTIVE AGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally very well written.
Experimental design: In line 213, the authors should define what type of regression analysis was being performed (I assume univariate and then multivariate linear regression analysis)

It should be clarified in table 3 and table 4 that one of these is univariate linear regression analysis and the other is multivariate linear regression analysis (looking for independent variables).

Most importantly, the variables that are mentioned in Table 1 do not match with some that are in Table 3/4. Tables 3/4 include novel and confronting variables such as violence experiences, abortion, baby loss, which are not previously mentioned in the methods or results. Similarly, Tables 3/4 exclude many variables from Table 1 such as social status, education levels, employment, health insurance, years in Jordan. What is the reasoning behind this extremely confusing discrepancy? Can the authors please keep a consistent note of which variables exactly are being studied and statistically analysed, and just omit all the others?
Validity of the findings: My major concern here is that in the conclusions of the abstract and of the main paper, the authors seem to imply that their study compared Syrian women to women in surrounding Arab populations and found poorer health outcomes. However, this is not reflective of this study which only interviewed Syrian women.

The authors can compare their findings to those of other studies in the discussion, but should make the important caveat that these are studies may have had different methodologies, have been conducted during different socio-political circumstances etc.

They should not claim that this current study has done direct comparison between ethnic groups.
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 HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE OF SYRIAN REFUGEE WOMEN IN THEIR REPRODUCTIVE AGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article meets all Basic reporting criteria.
So, No Comment.
Experimental design: No Comment.
Validity of the findings: No Comment.
Additional comments: The article meets all the standard criteria of the journal.


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 HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE OF SYRIAN REFUGEE WOMEN IN THEIR REPRODUCTIVE AGE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Refugees who fled Syria included Syrian and Palestinian refugees.
it would be more comprehensive if a sample from Palestine refugees were included but may be added to the recommendation for future research


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

Input:
Title: THE HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE OF SYRIAN REFUGEE WOMEN IN THEIR REPRODUCTIVE AGE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No further issues. Thank you for addressing my previous concerns.
Experimental design: No further issues. Thank you for addressing my previous concerns.
Validity of the findings: No further issues. Thank you for addressing my previous concerns.
Additional comments: Congratulations on an excellent study and thank you for addressing my previous concerns. I wish you all the best in the future and commend you for your work in such an important humanitarian and socio-political arena.


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: MEASUREMENTS OF THE GINGIVAL PAPILLAE ARCHITECTURE USING CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN YOUNG CHINESE ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Yang’s paper explored some morphological parameters, including PH, FLT and IDD in maxillary anterior teeth by CBCT and provided anatomical data for aesthetic treatments. Its English expression was fluent.
Some minor points needed to be improved:
There were some researches concerning the direct measurement for PH and papillary width in mouth, such as “Analysis of the gingival biotype based on the measurement of the dentopapillary complex”, “The gingival biotype revisited: transparency of the periodontal probe through the gingival margin as a method to discriminate thin from thick gingiva”…….. Direct measurement in mouth is simple and noninvasive. What is the necessity and significance of the measurement using CBCT?
Experimental design: To measure PH, how to ensure the sagittal plane of each measurement was fixed? Was the sagittal plane perpendicular to the lip surface of the teeth or the line connecting center point of two adjacent root canals? For IDD measurement, there was also a same question.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Including samples in this experiment were young Chinese population. Are there any differences in PH, FLT and IDD in samples of different races and ages? It might be better to modify the title as “………in Young Chinese Populations”.


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: MEASUREMENTS OF THE GINGIVAL PAPILLAE ARCHITECTURE USING CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN YOUNG CHINESE ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The quality of language is lacking for publication throughout. Both tenses and verbiage need improvement to make the text acceptable.
 ie Line 1-20-Incomplete sentence
     Line 25-Height of Papilla (PH)- simplified Papillae Height (PH)-correct tense
     Line 44-45-According...present completely-improved by saying totally present or completely present
     Line 51-The sentence should read- There is sparse "evidence" rather than investigation
     Line 59-Contact "statuses"-no such word exists-perhaps "types" would have sufficed

Literature references are adequate- reference to Lyndon Cooper and his concepts on implants should have been included

    Figures and tables adequate

    Hypothesis and conclusions reasonable

The major concern is about the construction of the article. It confuses the topic rather than giving it clarification. The authors have done their due diligence in their investigation. They have failed to convey their findings in a cogent manner. A rewrite with the help of an editor with knowledge of the Gunning FOG index is in order. This will make the article readable and salient.
Experimental design: Well defined-see previous notes
Validity of the findings: Valid findings-concern should be discussed with regard to clinical relevance. Data is complete and statistically significant as noted. Do these findings really matter in the workplace at this time? Introspection is needed.
Additional comments: Marked improvement is necessary in writing to make this manuscript acceptable. The basic premise is reasonable. It must be readable.


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: MEASUREMENTS OF THE GINGIVAL PAPILLAE ARCHITECTURE USING CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN YOUNG CHINESE ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) The authors have made a commendable effort in writing a well referenced manuscript.

2) The language used in the article is clear and understandable.
Experimental design: 1) In the present study the authors have utilized CBCT for assessing various gingival parameters for the presence and dimension of interdental papilla. However, in the segment of introduction (line no. 51-52) authors have noted "there is a sparse investigation on the relationship between the presence and the three-dimensional size of the gingival architecture (Chow et al., 2010)." this may not be completely rational, since there are several studies with conventional techniques that have tried to evaluate the same. Therefore it is suggested that the authors rephrase the given line.

2) CBCT is essentially related to the diagnosis of hard tissues. A precise and detailed justification for its usage, advantages over conventional techniques, drawbacks and clinical applicability in gingival analysis of the present study should be provided either in the segment of introduction or in the discussion.

3) In the clinical examination (Line no 80-83) the criteria for determining the presence or absence of papilla should have been more definitive. Authors would have benefited by utilizing the classification systems given by Norland and Tarnow or the Papilla Presence Index by  Cardaropoli etc.

4) The CBCT examination is sufficiently detailed.

5) the measurement criteria of IDD (Line no 118-119) requires more description and clarity.
Validity of the findings: The conclusion drawn in the study regarding tooth contact and presence of IP require more explanation.
Additional comments: The authors are appreciated for a well conducted study.  Though unrelated to the main manuscript,  it would have been appreciated if an English translated copy of consent and IRB would have been provided.


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: MEASUREMENTS OF THE GINGIVAL PAPILLAE ARCHITECTURE USING CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN YOUNG CHINESE ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 20 The aim of this study was to study……Two “studies” are used together, it is recommended to replace words.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: 1.Line 27 Statistical methods do not need to be included in the abstract.
2. It is recommended to indicate each reference surface and how to measure the parameters (PH, FLT, IDD…) in figure.


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: MEASUREMENTS OF THE GINGIVAL PAPILLAE ARCHITECTURE USING CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN YOUNG CHINESE ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I have made correction to the manuscript and would like to send it as a PDF. Changes are made in red.
Experimental design: Design is reasonable. Other methodologies have been used in the past for these determinations
Validity of the findings: Statistical analysis is acceptable. A larger sampling (which the authors stated is planned) will give an improved power analysis.
Additional comments: Changes in syntax have improved readability for an international audience. Further changes have been done by the reviewer. These include reduction of compound sentences and tenses.


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: PERCEPTION AND PRACTICES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY IN NIGERIA: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study is clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout. The literature used well referenced & relevant. The structure conforms to PeerJ standards, the raw data available.
Experimental design: The methodology of the study should adhere to STROBE statement for reporting cross-sectional studies. The authors could make use of this checklist to improve this manuscript. Please follow this link: https://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_cross-sectional.pdf

- Please mention in details the formula used to calculate the sample size and your population size.
- Explain more about the tool  development, and the references you have used during the development.
- You need to add section about the validation of the survey. Have you conducted a pilot study etc, panel of expert review, have you modified some questions based on the feedback received during pilot study? Face validity, content validity.....
Validity of the findings: The authors developed the questionnaire and did not mention any thing about the validity. Content validity usually used for such questionnaire development . Perhaps the authors could elaborate the content validity procedure in a detailed paragraph in methods as well as in results. The authors could mention content validity index and content validity ratio to improve the rigor of method. I have provided link to content validity literature from LAWSHE 1975 below:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.9380&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I have also provided a research paper that has used content validity method and interpreted the findings. Please read the study and try to report the content validity in the manner reported by the study. Please see the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5750538/
You may wish to cite this study as a backup to your content validity method selection.
Additional comments: This manuscript highlights an important area of research that is currently booming all over the world. I have had pleasure in reading this manuscript and have recommended important modifications that I believe are essential to improve the manuscript's scientific rigor and worthiness for publication.
The introduction should logically progress to the purpose statement. The analogy of a funnel is helpful when thinking of the introduction, which follows a logical sequence from broadly presenting the concept to focusing on a specific knowledge gap, discrepancy between studies, or research question that leads to the purpose statement. In other words, Mention that explicitly and describe why it is important to learn from this region. The introduction and discussion section could benefit from recent study about COVID-19 public perceptions which was conducted in Arab countries including Egypt which located in Africa. This study would also help in formulating the introduction and discussion of this paper.
https://joppp.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40545-020-00247-x

- The methodology of the study should adhere to STROBE statement for reporting cross-sectional studies. The authors could make use of this checklist to improve this manuscript. Please follow this link:
https://www.strobe-statement.org/fileadmin/Strobe/uploads/checklists/STROBE_checklist_v4_cross-sectional.pdf

- Please mention in details the formula used to calculate the sample size and your population size.
- Explain more about the tool  development, and the references you have used during the development.
- You need to add section about the validation of the survey. Have you conducted a pilot study etc, panel of expert review, have you modified some questions based on the feedback received during pilot study? Face validity, content validity.....
The authors developed the questionnaire and did not mention any thing about the validity. Content validity usually used for such questionnaire development . Perhaps the authors could elaborate the content validity procedure in a detailed paragraph in methods as well as in results. The authors could mention content validity index and content validity ratio to improve the rigor of method. I have provided link to content validity literature from LAWSHE 1975 below:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.460.9380&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I have also provided a research paper that has used content validity method and interpreted the findings. Please read the study and try to report the content validity in the manner reported by the study. Please see the link:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5750538/

You may wish to cite this study as a backup to your content validity method selection.

"Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means “one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means “one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z. Muslim is more preferred by scholars and by English-speaking adherents of Islam.
Regarding your finding about Muslim, All the 6 points used for scoring is done by Muslims 5 times a day during wudu steps which performed before prayers. Please watch this short clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1AyRBejDVk&t=125s
Therefore I think this finding may affect the validity of your result as it is against the logic. The finding could be during to reporting bias by people who collected the data. My advise to you is to delete the religion socio-demographic variable part from your result and discussion and abstract.


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

Input:
Title: PERCEPTION AND PRACTICES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY IN NIGERIA: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: English used is acceptable, quite clear and unambiguous. However, a general editing for punctuation errors should be conducted.

Background context and literature are not sufficient. Please check the general comments for further suggestions to improve this aspect of your manuscript.

Hypotheses were not clearly stated. You may want to look into this.
Experimental design: Research questions are well defined and research gap filled is well explained.

The investigations performed are not rigorous enough. Further statistical analysis may be conducted to improve the quality of the manuscript. Check the general comments section to see further suggestions on how to go about this.

Method is fairly described. The authors can do more.
Validity of the findings: Fair.

Please check the general comments section on suggestions to better discuss your findings.
Additional comments: The authors have conducted an important study which is relevant and timely. The manuscript will however benefit from the following observations

Title
Include a definite article “the” before “Covid-19 in the title, such that it reads, “... during the COVID-19 pandemic...”

Abstract
In the Abstract, under the method section, put a full stop (.) after the first sentence.
State the number of household members sampled in the method section of the Abstract as well as their gender distribution and their mean age or age range as you may desire. Remove the statement on age from the results section. You didn’t set out to find out their ages as your primary hypothesis, so state it in your description of demographics under the method section.

Introduction
Page 1, Paragraph 1, Line 12 of the Introduction: Please change “individual’s” to    “ individuals’ “
Please update COVID-19 case numbers to reflect the current status as at the date the manuscript will be resubmitted.
Check for the proper use of punctuations all through the work. The punctuation mark, full stop (.) is neglected in several places through out the manuscript.
The literature review conducted by the authors is not rich enough. A Covid-19 related study in their home country should leverage on some already published empirical findings surrounding their interest from the same locality. I’d suggest they review the following works freely available online and cite appropriately. This will improve the quality of their literature review;
Chukwuorji, J. C., & Iorfa, S. K. (2020). Commentary on the coronavirus pandemic: Nigeria. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(S1), S188-S190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000786

Iorfa, S.K., Ottu, I.F.A., et al (2020) COVID-19 knowledge, risk perception and precautionary behaviour among Nigerians: A moderated mediation approach. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.20.20104786

Olapegba, P., Ayandele, O., et al (2020)A Preliminary Assessment of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Knowledge and Perceptions in Nigeria. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.11.20061408

Aluh, D. O., & Onu, J. U. (2020). The need for psychosocial support amid COVID-19 crises in Nigeria. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(5), 557–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000704

Methods
Please insert “of” between the dates, e.g, 3rd of June...
Update case numbers and rank for Oyo State before resubmission.
The whole of the methodology section needs to be rewritten in line with the journal guidelines. Remove unnecessary information and include very important details about your sample/participants characteristics. Ensure that it is okay to report demographics under results instead of adding it up as sample characteristics.
Results
Your analysis is too basic. Could you not at least conduct some correlation analysis to see the relationships between some of your variables? It would be interesting to find out how those perceptions correlate with practices.

Discussions
Compare and congrats your findings with others conducted in Nigeria as well and not just those in Ethiopia and other countries. Take a look at Olapegba et al (2020) and Iorfa et al (2020) stated earlier.

Conclusions
Your conclusion is vague and ambiguous. Could you be more specific in giving practical recommendations? For instance, when you speak of practices which protect against transmission...., what practices are you referring to? Could you please give examples?

References
Please format all your references accordingly to fit the journal format.


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

Input:
Title: PERCEPTION AND PRACTICES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY IN NIGERIA: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This version is much better than precious one. The author had addressed the majority of requested comments.
Experimental design: Valid Experimental design
Validity of the findings: valid
Additional comments: Thank you for addressing the majority of the comments


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

Input:
Title: PERCEPTION AND PRACTICES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN AN URBAN COMMUNITY IN NIGERIA: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I thank the author(s) for their diligent responses to the reviewer comments. The manuscript has greatly improved. I have only a few minor corrections to point out. Do not be scared by the length of the additions, they are only minor corrections. Congratulations.
In the abstract and elsewhere in the manuscript, change your usage of "analysis was done" to “analysis was conducted" or "analyses were conducted" as the case may be.
In the abstract, first state the total number of respondents  in the methods section. There will therefore be no need to repeat this information in the results section
Try a statement like this;
A descriptive cross-sectional study design using a multistage sampling technique  was used to recruit 360 respondents (Mean age; 33.2; 62.5% females) from households in....
If you have done this, there will be no need to capture the educational qualification here in the methods section or in the result section.
Please state how long the data collection took. For instance, instead of “data was collected using an interviewer-administered questionnaire in June 2020.” you may replace with “data was collected using an interviewer-administered questionnaire from 3rd-6th June, 2020..
Remove the sentence that begins with “Household members…”
In sum, if you accept my suggestions, the method section of your abstract should read something like this
A descriptive cross-sectional study design using a multistage sampling technique was used to recruit 360 respondents (Mean age; 33.2; 62.5% females) from households in Ibadan. Data was collected using an interviewer-administered questionnaire from 3rd-6th June, 2020. Those who demonstrated washing of the palm, back of the hand, spaces between the fingers, fingernails, wrist, and thumbs had 6 points and were categorized to have had a good practice of hand washing.  Descriptive statistics were conducted. Bivariate analyses of sociodemographic characteristics and good hand washing practices were conducted using Chi square tests. P values <0.05 were statistically significant.
Please note the additions of “s” and the changes from “analysis” to “analyses”
The results section should read like this;
Going to the hospital (95%) and calling the COVID-19 help number (58.3%) were the frequently reported practices among respondents following the development of COVID-19 symptoms. Also, 89 (26%) knew they could contract COVID-19, while 41 (12%) perceived it as an exaggerated event. The effects most frequently reported by respondents were hunger/low income (48.8%) and academic delay (8.8%). Use of face masks by 64.5% and social distancing (48%) were the most frequently reported practices for prevention. Only 71 (20.8%) demonstrated good hand washing practices. The perception of likelihood to contract COVID-19 and practices to prevent COVID-19 had a weak correlation of 0.239(p<0.001).
Please note the change from “signs” to “symptoms”. Effect this everywhere it appears in the body of the manuscript. Notice the inclusion of parenthesis for the 48%.
Include in your conclusion, a brief statement on the implications of the findings. If you love this example, you may use it. “Implications across public health communication and policies were stated.” If you have included this, then include a little policy implications and implications for public health communication and awareness campaigns in your discussions. Okay, I see you have alluded to this in the discussions already. You may add to it if you want to.
Remember to update case numbers for COVID-19 before re-submitting the manuscript.
Page 3, Line 75: Note the repetition of “in”. Please remove one.
Page 3, Line 76: Change the citation for “The Whistler, 2020” to “Enwongo, 2020”. Do this every other place it appears in the manuscript inorder not to have conflicting information in the citation and references.
Page 4, Line 114: Remove “The use of” and let the sentence read as  “Social media platforms such as…”
You have provided a section for study instruments separately and another section for Data collection methods and instruments. Please merge these appropriately. Provide reliability information for the Yoruba and English versions of your adapted scale. Cronbach alphas are enough.
Page 10, Line 289: Change “poor” to “inadequate”


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: DO CENTRES OF ENDEMISM PROVIDE A SPATIAL CONTEXT FOR PREDICTING AND PRESERVING PLANT PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN THE CAPE FLORISTIC REGION, SOUTH AFRICA?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors used the Centres of Endemism (CoEs) of Bradshaw et al. (2015) to test whether the geographic distribution of CFR endemic taxa predicts the distribution of intraspecific genetic variation. I commend the authors for this extensive work. The manuscript is clearly written painstakingly in professional manner. The results are compelling. The authors have shown that the evolutionary forces that have produced and maintained the exceptional plant diversity in the CFR have likely operated at the intraspecific level, producing similar patterns of phylogeographic structuring of plant lineages in spite of life history or taxonomy.

I only have the following minor observations that will hopefully help to improve the manuscript.

Line 7-9, reads “Here we test whether plant populations in the CFR exhibit phylogeographic breaks across the boundaries between Centres of Endemism (CoEs)” while line 94-96 reads “...to test whether the geographic distribution of CFR endemic taxa predicts the distribution of intraspecific genetic variation”. Although both statements may convey the same information, the use of ‘plant populations’ to refer to ‘endemic taxa’ to me sounds ambiguous since generally, not all plant populations are endemic to CFR even though the study covered only the endemic once. I suggest the use of similar terms for clarity and avoidance of ambiguity.

Line 14. Please specify the additional data used in this study. I couldn’t find it in the methodology section.

Line 22. Correct the sign of the Chi-square

Line 94 reads “Here we use 25 CFR core centres of endemism CoEs”, however, only 18 CoEs reflected in the result (see Figure 3 main). Please clarify.

Line 113. Put a space here ‘Levyn.Cowling’.

Line  130. Replace ‘that’ with ‘than’

Line 154. What does the asterisk on the “Phylogeography” mean? Also is the spelling correct?

Line 173. The reference Lacaze et al., 2018 is missing in the list of references.

Line 169. Please provide the raw data of the 179 population as supplementary file. This will ease the burden of going through all the 12 sources to find information about the species populations used in this study.

Line 220. Within CoE divergence comparisons were said to be conducted across 12 CoEs”, however, Figure 3 Inset shows 11 CoEs. Please clarify.


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: DO CENTRES OF ENDEMISM PROVIDE A SPATIAL CONTEXT FOR PREDICTING AND PRESERVING PLANT PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN THE CAPE FLORISTIC REGION, SOUTH AFRICA?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: Please see my general comment!
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I only have few comments/suggestions. My main concern stems from the use of very few published data, in this case only 12 studies representing 6 families and 8 genera, to study a well-designed question. The nature of the study would also need to take into consideration of different aspects of the study group regarding for example; life history traits, mating system, habitat, life forms, dispersal mechanisms and so on. I believe the authors tried their best to include some of the information in to account but not to the fullest to qualify the study as a complete one. This is in addition to the lack of well representative phylogeographic sampling across the CFR, as also stated by the authors. Nonetheless I appreciate the idea and the effort that the authors have put on to the study.

I haven’t seen a single word of hybrid or hybridization in the manuscript. Is that because none of the species group examined didn’t show any signal of hybridization or you have systematically left it out? Would be great to know how does the distribution of hybrids around CoEs? Is it common across or mainly confined within boundaries?

I was surprised not to see a single sentence explaining the type of molecular methods used to detect genetic divergence in the different studies. I suggest to include a text in the method and column on Table 1 to show the type of method used in each study.

Pp 129-130: please correct typo “more often that within” to “more often than within”

126-132: I don’t see the importance of listing the first hypothesis if you are not going to test in the in this study.


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

Input:
Title: DO CENTRES OF ENDEMISM PROVIDE A SPATIAL CONTEXT FOR PREDICTING AND PRESERVING PLANT PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN THE CAPE FLORISTIC REGION, SOUTH AFRICA?
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I am satisfied that the manuscript is clear and unambiguous and professional English was used throughout. Literature references are relevant and sufficient field background and context is provided.

The manuscript includes an introduction and background with sufficient background on centres of endemism and phylogeographic breaks in a ‘Cape’ context. Relevant prior literature was compared, evaluated and appropriately referenced. I thought the concept and ideas were explained very well.

The structure of the manuscript conforms to an acceptable format of ‘standard sections’ as required by the journal. All figures were relevant to the content of the manuscript and of sufficient resolution, and appropriately described and labelled.

The results were relevant to the hypotheses.

The manuscript sufficiently meets all the journal standards.

I though the title was misleading as it proposes to preserve phylogeographic patterns. In contrast the manuscript is highlighting a knowledge gap which involves using phylogeographic breaks to determine if genetic diversity is also influenced by steep environmental gradients at population level across SOEs.

There were few spelling and technical mistakes in the manuscript. It will require proofreading before it can be accepted for publication.
Experimental design: The research questions were well defined, relevant and meaningful. It came over very clearly how the research fills an identified knowledge gap. The approach followed is innovative by combining published research results to answer new research questions. I just think, as the authors also stated, that the data set used was too limited to really come to any meaningful conclusions.

However, the submission is very important as it clearly defines a research question, with some positive results, that requires much further research in the Cape Floristic Region. A major knowledge gap is identified, and the strength of the manuscript lies in its preliminary results and ideas on how to fill that gap for conservation purposes.

The investigation was rigorous, albeit data limited, and performed to a high technical standard. The methodological approach followed was described with sufficient detail and information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: The results are somewhat inconclusive due to the limited number of taxa considered and the low number of replicate populations. Fortunately, the authors acknowledge this shortcoming and they do not present the work as a major, definitive work on the topic, but use their positive results to encourage the scientific community to address this knowledge gap. I feel this is an important manuscript to get this idea into the scientific domain.

The data used were robust and statistically sound in terms of analyses, but not in terms of sample size. But it was sufficient to link the original research question to the results. By adjusting the title to better reflect the idea behind this manuscript, the small sample size can be justified as being part of an exploratory study.

The conclusions were appropriately stated, were connected to the original question investigated, and were limited to those supported by the results.
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: DO CENTRES OF ENDEMISM PROVIDE A SPATIAL CONTEXT FOR PREDICTING AND PRESERVING PLANT PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN THE CAPE FLORISTIC REGION, SOUTH AFRICA?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: DO CENTRES OF ENDEMISM PROVIDE A SPATIAL CONTEXT FOR PREDICTING AND PRESERVING PLANT PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN THE CAPE FLORISTIC REGION, SOUTH AFRICA?
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Corrections have been addressed appropriately.
Experimental design: Not applicable.
Validity of the findings: Corrections have been addressed appropriately.
Additional comments: No additional comments