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: DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) FROM PUERTO RICO: A CHECKLIST WITH NOTES ON DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language is used properly,
Only few references are listed, which does not reflect the ambition to characterize the dragonfly fauna of a large area.
The article is well structured, but it remains purely descriptive. There is not hypotheses that can be tested. This would mean that the standards for research papers are not met. This cannot be solved by improvements, as the paper is a pure list of recorded species.
However, to my opinion, it is a merit to publish such a list of species and to make this knowledge available to the scientific community. The question is just whether a journal such as PeerJ is the right platform for this.
The figure 1 is not helpful as it does not show the investigation area but rather the Carribean archipelago.
Figure captions of figure 2 and 3 are mixed up.
The only contents-oriented figures are those 5 fotos of dragonflies.
The major quality of the manuscript is in the tables of the appendix.
Experimental design: There is no experiment. The sampling is not well designed, as the paper concludes the result of almost 20 years of field work and recording. I do have concern of the data quality for the spatial distribution of specimen accross the island, as field work was done to a great part by unexperienced undergraduate students. The aim was obviously, together with expert opinions, to creat a list of Odonata species. This is a very important work, but it does not satisfy the standards of a peer-reviewed research paper. Such data should rather be made available in data respositories for further large-scale analyses.
Validity of the findings: As the data were recorded over a long period and data sources are inconsistent, i do see only a limited validity of the findings because it will be difficult to yield sound results for changes in the future based on this species list.
Additional comments: I appreciate your work but i recommend to publish these data rather in data repositories than in research journals.


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: DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) FROM PUERTO RICO: A CHECKLIST WITH NOTES ON DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment; the paper is descriptive, with no experimental design
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Word document attached with all my comments


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

Input:
Title: DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) FROM PUERTO RICO: A CHECKLIST WITH NOTES ON DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: General:

1)	The manuscript is clearly written in unambiguous language
2)	It has a professional structure
3)	The literature is appropriate as support and context according to the scope of the ms
4)	Tables are clear with abundant information

-Figure 1: I strongly recommend to improve this map, it highlights Dominican Republic instead of Puerto Rico, and could be confuse for readers from other parts of the World.
Experimental design: Specific:

-Introduction: Lines 87-88, please provide a couple of examples of groups with major gaps;
Lines 120-122, it would be interesting if you could discuss if the Meurgey’s reduction in the number of species for PR is according with your findings.

-Materials & Methods: Lines 148-151, the surveys were sporadic, in a monthly fashion or focused in a particular season?
Validity of the findings: -Results: Lines 173-176, please provide the citations (author, date) whose records were omitted from your list. This would be useful if in the future these species are found.

-Discussion: You found 9 species more than those of the historical records, could be due to a major collecting effort, immigrations, or anything else? I know this could fall in speculative grounds but maybe you could have some ideas to this respect.

-References: Lines 337-340, these citations should be inverted.
Additional comments: I congratulate to the authors for this interesting contribution that up to date the list of Odonata from Puerto Rico. It is important in the context of climate change that is enhancing the colonization of new areas by several species of dragonflies and damselflies.


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: DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES (ODONATA) FROM PUERTO RICO: A CHECKLIST WITH NOTES ON DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: This was a second review to confirm that the authors had responded to questions and comments on the first review. They did so to my satisfaction.


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: DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF CISPLATIN ON CYBRID CELLS WITH VARYING MITOCHONDRIAL DNA HAPLOGROUPS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article entitled " Differential effects of cisplatin on cybrid cells with varying mitochondrial DNA haplogroups" (article number 45720) submitted by Sina Abedi, et al provided useful information on maternal-origin haplogroup mtDNA plays a role in cisplatin responses. This is a related study from previous studies by the same group (Patel et al. 2019). The authors used transmitochondrial cybrids and NGS techniques and tend to compare the differential effect of mtDNA haplogroups in cisplatin responses. The present study concluded that an individual’s mtDNA background may affect their response to cisplatin treatment, thereby affecting the efficiency and the severity of side effects from the treatment. The underlying molecular mechanisms are still largely unknown.
Experimental design: The  comments and suggestions as listed
1.	Please change “Method” to “Methods” in Line 51.
2.	There is no description on Figures 4 & 5 in the results section. The Figure 4 is not really related to this study, the authors might consider to remove it and describe it in the introduction section and cite the original resource instead. The Figure 5 should be Figure 1 according to the order of the presentation. Thus, the order of Figures should be reformatted.
3.	The Figure legends are not properly stated. They should include brief description of experiment procedures (dose, time, conditions…) and the statistical analysis if applied. Conclusion statement is not recommended in the figure legend. In addition, the title of the Figures should be a conclusive statement.
4.	According to the information in Materials and Methods section and Table 1, there are only 14 donor subjects in this study (n = 7 for L cybrids, n = 4 for [A+B] cybrids, and n = 3 for D cybrids). Why the number size in different assays is different and greater than the established cybrid lines in Figures 6~9? For example, could it be just because of more sets of data in L haplogroup in Figure 8? It is hard to tell the statistical analysis from the raw data. The same experiments should be done several times and do the statistical analysis afterwards. The authors should describe the statistical analysis in more details and discuss this issue in the discussion section.
5.	The authors should provide the rational for picking genes in Tables 2 & 3. The clinical relevance/treatment suggestion??
6.	This study provides numerous information of mtDNA haplogroups from racial/ethnic populations correlated with variable susceptibility to cisplatin treatments. Is it cause of effect or only association??
7.	The authors should put more efforts on interpretation of the SNPs in the Figs 1-3 in results and discussion sections. Any particular SNP correlated to the observed phenotype in Figures 6~9?
Validity of the findings: From this and others’ studies, It is  totally agreed that mtDNA contributes to the susceptibility to cisplatin treatments. However, it is well-known that the nuclear DNA plays important role in cisplatin response. The authors should discuss if there are any role of it in the present study.
Additional comments: The experimental design and statistical analysis are highly recommended to be adjusted.


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: DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF CISPLATIN ON CYBRID CELLS WITH VARYING MITOCHONDRIAL DNA HAPLOGROUPS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please have a look at Major concerns: 6 and Minor concerns: 1 to 4.
Experimental design: Please have a look at Major concerns: 1 to 5.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Cisplatin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic agent, causes different levels of resistance and side effects for different patients, but the mechanism(s) are presently unknown. It is a good idea to investigate the individual’s mitochondrial (mt) DNA in toxicity of cisplatin. In this manuscript, Dr. Sina Abedi and colleagues used transmitochondrial cytoplasmic hybrids (cybrids) modle to investigate the individual’s mitochondrial (mt) DNA in toxicity of cisplatin in vitro. The study’s conclusion showed that an individual’s mtDNA background may affect their response to cisplatin treatment, thereby affecting the efficiency and the severity of side effects from the treatment. Although the current study is interesting, there are some major concerns that need to be addressed before consideration of publication.

Major concerns:
1. “Materials & Methods – Cybrid Cell Lines Culture” Line 189. “…cells were treated with 100 μL of 40 μM concentration of cisplatin…” Why the author chose cisplatin at a concentration of 40 M? Generally, half of the inhibitory concentration of cisplatin in cancer cells for 48 hours is about 10 M in vitro. It is suggested that the author should inquire and select the experimental concentration according to the blood concentration of cisplatin, or use the gradient concentration of high, medium and low for reference.
2. “Materials & Methods – Cellular Metabolic Activity Measured by Tetrazolium Dye (MTT) Assay” Line 193-205. The principle of MTT method to detect cell activity is related to mitochondrial metabolism. If the survival or viability of cells is to be directly reflected, I suggest the author use Trypan Blue or PI staining cells count method to directly observe the survival or viability of cells.
3. “Materials & Methods – Mitochondrial Membrane Potential (ΔΨm) Assay (JC-1 Assay)” Line 207-217. JC-1 assay is a classical method to detect the mitochondrial membrane potential of cells, but the fluorescence reading by the microplate reader will be affected by the uniformity of cell plated. Therefore, I suggest the author use flow cytometry for quantitative analysis.
4. “Materials & Methods – RNA Isolation, Quantitative-Real Time PCR (qRT-PCR)” Line 232-248. Please provide primer sequence and describe the internal reference gene used.
5. “Materials & Methods – Statistical Analysis” Line 254. In order to better show the degree of data dispersion, it is recommended to use standard deviation instead of standard error.
6. “Results – Growth Rate of Untreated L, A, B, and D Cybrids” Line 264-272. “For example, the untreated-D cybrids (Asian origin) (1.12 ± 0.02, n = 38)…” In Figure 6. The units of the y-coordinate are percentages. Please check the full text carefully and use the same units and data as the chart.

Minor comments:
1. “Introduction” Line 71-150. Background information is too detailed and needs to be drastically reduced.
2. In Figure 6 to 9. The ordinate of all charts should show units.
3. In Figure 6 and 7. The y-coordinate should be “relative cell viability”.
4. In Table 3. HPRT1 and HMBS? Please review the full text carefully and delete the data and text irrelevant to this article.


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: DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF CISPLATIN ON CYBRID CELLS WITH VARYING MITOCHONDRIAL DNA HAPLOGROUPS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised article entitled " Differential effects of cisplatin on cybrid cells with varying mitochondrial DNA haplogroups" (article number 45720) submitted by Sina Abedi, et al provided useful information on maternal-origin haplogroup mtDNA plays a role in cisplatin responses. The authors addressed most of my comments and improved the manuscript to make the content more precise!
Experimental design: The authors addressed most of my comments and modified accordingly.
There is one more question:
I am not quite understand the statistic expression in Fig legends . For example, in Fig 5 “ The untreated-L cybrids (102.4% ±7.0%, SD = 21.0, n = 7) had similar relative cellular metabolic activity when compared to the untreated-D cybrids (111.7% ± 4.3%, SD = 11.3, n = 3, p = 0.311) and the untreated-[A+B] cybrids (95.0% ± 8.5%, SD = 20.9, n = 4, p = 0.512).”  What does SD mean in “102.4% ±7.0%, SD = 21.0, n = 7”?  Is it 7.0 or 21.0? Same to the rest and other Figures.
Validity of the findings: The authors addressed most of my comments! The authors had discussed in more details about the future application of the current study!
Additional comments: The authors addressed most of my comments and revised the manuscript accordingly.


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: DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF CISPLATIN ON CYBRID CELLS WITH VARYING MITOCHONDRIAL DNA HAPLOGROUPS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Cisplatin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic agent, causes different levels of resistance and side effects for different patients, but the mechanism(s) are presently unknown. It is a good idea to investigate the individual’s mitochondrial (mt) DNA in toxicity of cisplatin. In this manuscript, Dr. Sina Abedi and colleagues used transmitochondrial cytoplasmic hybrids (cybrids) modle to investigate the individual’s mitochondrial (mt) DNA in toxicity of cisplatin in vitro. The study’s conclusion showed that an individual’s mtDNA background may affect their response to cisplatin treatment, thereby affecting the efficiency and the severity of side effects from the treatment. After the modification, the data quality and language description are improved. Although there are still some deficiencies (sample size is small, and methods is simple) in this study, there are few relevant explorations in this field. This study is a good case worthy of publication and guidance for further 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: PERSISTENT MOSQUITO FOGGING CAN BE DETRIMENTAL TO NON-TARGET INVERTEBRATES IN AN URBAN TROPICAL FOREST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is generally well written. I note several areas where clarity of the manuscript could be improved. These are listed in order of importance.

1. Figures 3 & 4 do not value add substantially to the manuscript. It would probably be better presenting the information as a series of paired boxplots showing the (possibly log-transformed) abundances of alive vs dead for each invertebrate taxon considered. Statistical significance/credible-ness can simply be indicated using asterisks on such a plot. Nevertheless, see comment below regarding alive-vs-dead comparison

2. L25-31 of the Introduction seem a bit irrelevant to the topic of this study

3. The statistical analysis portion of the Materials and Methods (L158-168) was not clearly written. A "Bayesian framework" says nothing about the nature of the analysis used. Instead, the purpose and inferential mechanism of the analysis should be stated (e.g., this test is a quantitative comparison between two samples). The statement of L164 is also a questionable exaggeration and should be avoided (it is rather that BEST allows the relaxation of assumptions that classical t-tests require).
Experimental design: 1. My greatest concern is that the alive versus dead comparison does not actually yield the desired quantitative insight into insecticide vulnerability/susceptibility
At least three quantities remain unknown here:
(1)	the number of all invertebrates that were in the canopy (thus the “global” sample-able total)
(2)	the number of all invertebrates that remained in the canopy—whether they died up there, were unaffected by fogging, or flew away when fogging commenced
(3)	the number of invertebrates which were initially knocked down by insecticides, but which recovered and flew/crawled out of the canvas before the 3 hour mark
(4)	the number of invertebrates that were recorded as “alive” which eventually succumbed.
(3) and (4) are not extremely important, although they should at least be addressed at some point in the manuscript (e.g., as a limitation). But it is (1) and/or (2) which have the potential to invalidate the conclusions of the study, because without a knowledge of these quantities, everything from L223-256 of the discussion section cannot be substantiated by the data—I am not saying these conclusions are false, but simply that they are not defensible by the data presented within this study. The alive versus dead at the 3-hr mark simply does not yield the desired quantitative insight into insecticide vulnerability/susceptibility that the authors seek to investigate.
It is however important to point out the flip side to this issue. In L219-222, authors say that “Our results demonstrate that the fogging insecticide had an unintended adverse effects on non-target invertebrates - this was also observed by Abeyasuriya et al. (2017) in Sri Lanka, where more dead than alive individuals were recorded amongst the 12 insect orders sampled post- 24-hr fogging.” But the “unintended adverse effects [of fogging] on non-target invertebrates” is not contingent on a alive-versus-dead ratio of >1. In an extreme case, if 10 butterflies were knocked down and 1 died while the remaining 9 recovered, non-target mortality has still occurred.

2. The study is meant to evaluate the effect of conventional fogging practices on non-target invertebrate taxa, presumably those that inhabit natural areas such as KDCF forest. However, authors seem to emphasize that the methodology for tree fogging is unconventional in its timing and location. It may be necessary to clarify how this methodology aligns with the study's objectives.
Validity of the findings: See point above regarding alive versus dead counts.

A key premise to the study, is that mosquitoes were present in trees when fogging occurred, but that fogging failed to knock these down. The conclusion suggested by authors was that mosquitoes may have developed insecticide resistance. I would encourage authors to strengthen this premise and perhaps even test this conclusion. For example, a simple manual search by hand (sweep netting) can be used to determine if mosquitoes are present in the canopies of trees in KDCF. The identity of these mosquitoes (Aedes or otherwise) would also lend additional evidence for or against the supposed conclusion.
Additional comments: The study is an ambitious one which addresses a topic that is very important both to larger society and the ecology and conservation of invertebrates in the natural environment. A significant methodological issue mars the study somewhat, but it nevertheless presents data that is important, and from which important insights can be drawn.


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: PERSISTENT MOSQUITO FOGGING CAN BE DETRIMENTAL TO NON-TARGET INVERTEBRATES IN AN URBAN TROPICAL FOREST
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: If this study’s goal is to replicate how Aedes aegypti are controlled in the study region regardless of being it is a sound practice, then I would consider it as an operational note and try to publish it with Society of Vector Ecology or American Mosquito Control Association journals as an operational note.
Experimental design: Please see comments in the general comments section.
Validity of the findings: One of the major problems interpreting the results is the lack of continued surveillance before and after thermal fogging applications in order to evaluate abundance for all species investigated in the MS. There isn't a section dedicated to explain how surveillance is conducted. So I have no clue about the surveillance data presented in the MS. What methods, how long, how often, duration? How did you sample Collembola, butterflies etc. before thermal fogging? Biggest challenge with non-target studies is that there are too many factors affecting population densities. It is difficult to tease out the affect of insecticides. For example, is there any evidence that non-target organisms investigated here declining when compared with historical abundance data?
Additional comments: Dear Authors,
I am afraid this study has a major problem with the experimental design, unless this is only an operational note which in that case will not fit the scope of PeerJ.
Although it has not been spelled out in the MS, I believe the study’s goal is to investigate thermal fogging to control dengue vector Aedes aegypti and while doing that what is the non-target effect? If you look at the limited studies on truck mounted-adulticiding and barrier treatments for Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus; they are geared towards treating low lying structure and shrubs. These locations are most often the host-seeking and resting ground for these species. For this reason, when trees are fogged you will not be able to observe dead mosquitoes, because live mosquitoes are not present there to begin with.
The concept of resistance is totally misinterpreted as adulticiding is an in efficient way to do mosquito control. We are aware of resistance and are constantly making progress with monitoring. There are numerous publications showing efficacious adulticiding applications. Also bear in mind, container-inhabiting mosquitoes are not the only target mosquito for mosquito abatement districts and professionals. Using adulticides work for salt marsh mosquitoes.  Ae. albopictus is still more sensitive to pyrethroids and other adulticides and I can keep continue with more examples. Organophosphates are also effectively cause mortality for Ae. aegypti adults. However, the way this MS has been written it states adulticiding an ineffective control method for adult mosquitoes altogether.


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: PERSISTENT MOSQUITO FOGGING CAN BE DETRIMENTAL TO NON-TARGET INVERTEBRATES IN AN URBAN TROPICAL FOREST
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Reporting is generally clear throughout.

Authors may consider briefly reporting some key numbers or statistics (not statistical tests, simply, numbers, as presented in Table 1). For example, stating that Hymenoptera was the taxon present in greatest numbers in canopies (and regarding Hymenoptera, it would be good if it could be clarified if the majority of these were ants, wasps or bees).
Experimental design: The authors did well in including a section on limitations in the revision. This section now highlights the weaknesses in experimental design that I had commented on in the first review.
Validity of the findings: The "therefore" statement of L286-289 is slightly overconfident in my opinion. It is possible, but again, the limitations highlighted by the authors significantly reduce the certainty of such a conclusion. for example, the authors deliberately chose a time of day when mosquitoes may be less likely to be successfully killed by fogging (L135-138). The conclusion is certainly possible, but it should be tailored to accommodate the uncertainty of the methodology of the study.

Was the paired nature of the observations in "Impact of fogging on foraging behaviour of an invertebrate pollinator" taken into account in the statistical analysis? If so, how it was done should be stated in the description of the analysis. Most readers (like me) would not be familiar with BEST and what it does, and would expect a paired T-test on log-transformed abundance.
Additional comments: The authors have done a good job in responding to my earlier comments.

Two things can still be done to improve the study:
1. More descriptive biological context can be provided
For example, the size and species of the trees used in this study can be provided. If trees are <3m tall, it is likely that they are subcanopy species, immature individuals of canopy species, or else trees that occur in light gaps or forest edges. This information can give readers a better perspective of the biological context and scale of the study, and allow comparison to other studies of canopy fogging

2. Support the inference that soft bodied taxa are more vulnerable with the data
This inference appears to be one of the key findings of the study, but it is actually not shown to be substantiated by the data. A simple statistical test of proportion mortality between soft-bodied and hard-bodied taxa can be done to support this.


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: PERSISTENT MOSQUITO FOGGING CAN BE DETRIMENTAL TO NON-TARGET INVERTEBRATES IN AN URBAN TROPICAL FOREST
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revision is significantly clearer than earlier versions of the manuscript
Experimental design: -
Validity of the findings: -
Additional comments: Authors have done well in addressing earlier concerns/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: BRAIN HOTHUBS AND DARK FUNCTIONAL NETWORKS: CORRELATION ANALYSIS BETWEEN AMPLITUDE AND CONNECTIVITY FOR BROCA’S APHASIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is generally well-written and structured. The authors collected valuable MEG data in both patients and healthy control groups, although the sample is limited but the population is well-matched. The current study is focusing on the relationship between local activation and connectivity/network measures which is an important question and will be of wide interest to many researchers in the field of cognitive neuroscience.
Experimental design: Please describe the experiment paradigm with more details to help readers to fully understand how the picture naming task was conducted in the MEG scanner, for example, the authors mentioned that there were 40 stimuli in the experiment, and each run has 100 trials, how many runs (trials in total) do you collect?
Validity of the findings: 1).	Please provide more information on the behavioral performance in the MEG scanner, were there incorrect trials for the task in two groups, and if this is the case, was there a significant difference in accuracy between groups? And, did the analysis include both correct and incorrect trials? These behavioral effects could also be the reasons caused the difference of amplitude-connectivity relationships between groups.

2).	One of the participants whose age at onset was 19 (B5), who was significantly younger than other participants in both groups, as extensive prior fMRI studies revealed that older adults consistently show decreased activity in visual cortex and medial temporal lobes in a diverse of tasks such as attention, visual perception, working memory(Cabeza et al., 2004; Gutchess et al., 2005; Maillet & Rajah, 2014; Pinal, Zurron, & Diaz, 2015; Rajah & D'Esposito, 2005; Spreng, Wojtowicz, & Grady, 2010). Also, other studies suggested there was over-activation in the prefrontal cortex in aging (Maillet & Rajah, 2013; Spreng et al., 2010). This could be a confounding factor of results reported here, especially considering that the limited sample in this dataset. Therefore, could the authors explain the reason why they included this young participant? Could the authors provide data to confirm the results were not driven by this participant?

3).	In the abstract, the authors mentioned ‘Partial correlation’, I might be lost and not clear on which factor the authors want to control in the analysis. Could the authors provide this information in the Methods part?

4).	Given the Broca group damaged parts of their brain, could this cause the amplitude differences in those areas and their connectivity patterns with other regions significantly different from control group? In other words, would the amplitude-connectivity relationships between groups be robust and stable after removing damaged areas in both groups, as those values, to some extent, might be outliers (in Broca group) that could cause the differences between two groups. This might be a wrong question since I am not familiar with lesion studies.

Cabeza, R., Daselaar, S. M., Dolcos, F., Prince, S. E., Budde, M., & Nyberg, L. (2004). Task-independent and task-specific age effects on brain activity during working memory, visual attention and episodic retrieval. Cerebral Cortex, 14(4), 364-375.
Gutchess, A. H., Welsh, R. C., Hedden, T., Bangert, A., Minear, M., Liu, L. L., & Park, D. C. (2005). Aging and the neural correlates of successful picture encoding: frontal activations compensate for decreased medial-temporal activity. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 17(1), 84-96.
Maillet, D., & Rajah, M. N. (2013). Association between prefrontal activity and volume change in prefrontal and medial temporal lobes in aging and dementia: a review. Ageing research reviews, 12(2), 479-489.
Maillet, D., & Rajah, M. N. (2014). Age-related differences in brain activity in the subsequent memory paradigm: a meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 45, 246-257.
Pinal, D., Zurron, M., & Diaz, F. (2015). An event related potentials study of the effects of age, load and maintenance duration on working memory recognition. PLoS One, 10(11), e0143117.
Rajah, M. N., & D'Esposito, M. (2005). Region-specific changes in prefrontal function with age: a review of PET and fMRI studies on working and episodic memory. Brain, 128(9), 1964-1983.
Spreng, R. N., Wojtowicz, M., & Grady, C. L. (2010). Reliable differences in brain activity between young and old adults: a quantitative meta-analysis across multiple cognitive domains. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(8), 1178-1194.
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: BRAIN HOTHUBS AND DARK FUNCTIONAL NETWORKS: CORRELATION ANALYSIS BETWEEN AMPLITUDE AND CONNECTIVITY FOR BROCA’S APHASIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No captions for supplementary figures or tables.
References appeared in the supplementary table 2.
No figures for paradigm or behavioral results.
I can't find any information about 'Raw data shared' in the main text.
Experimental design: Methods are not very detained, and I don't think the information is sufficient enough for later replication.
Validity of the findings: The statistics in the study are not sound and well controlled.
Additional comments: The manuscript by Lin er al. reports an MEG study aimed at investigating the source amplitude-functional connectivity relationship and its difference between Broca's aphasia and healthy control during a picture-naming task. To this end, the authors did a correlation analysis between the source amplitude and network connectivity that is indicated by several measures from graph theory analysis. They found a decoupling between amplitude and network connectivity. And this relationship showed different patterns for Broca's aphasics and healthy control group.

I have a few major concerns as followings:
1. The most important result for this study was the comparison between aphasia and control group on the amplitude-connectivity relationship, which was not done by statistics but by 'visual inspections' (Line 294). In the 'statistical analysis' section (Line 263), there were statistics on 'inter-group for amplitude' and 'within-subject Pearson coefficients', but none on 'inter-group Pearson coefficients', which should be the key statistic for this study question. I suggest to do a permutation test on inter-group correlation coefficients.
2. No behavioral data was showed for both groups. Then how to make sure that the aphasics paid attention and were involved the task? If not, the cognitive processing was not comparable between aphasia and control group.
3. Why choose PLVs for gamma band as the edges in graph modeling? Studies have shown that alpha and beta activity were involved in picture-naming task, for instance "Piai, V., Roelofs, A., Rommers, J., Dahlslätt, K., & Maris, E. (2015). Withholding planned speech is reflected in synchronized beta-band oscillations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 549." Another concern is that high frequency activity like gamma hardly shows stable PLVs across long-range neural networks. It's better to first show a significant gamma PLVs during picture-naming compared with baseline to assure it as a meaningful input for graph modeling.
4. Did equal number of trials enter the PLVs analysis for both groups? Because different trial number results in different signal-to-noise level for PLVs. I can't find this information in the manuscript, if not, I suggest to redo PLVs with equal number of trials for both groups to eliminate the bias.
5. 'Dark functional networks' is a key concept in this manuscript, but no specific network names were given for it and no clear discussion on its cognitive meaning.
6. It'll be great to show some links between graph modeling measures and behavioral performance (e.g., RT). Please see this paper as a reference "Palva, J. Matias, et al. Neuronal synchrony reveals working memory networks and predicts individual memory capacity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107.16 (2010): 7580-7585."
7. No enough methods details for later replications:
1> No illustrator for paradigm, where is the naming production period?
2> 40 pictures for 100 trials (Line 107), which pictures are repeated? Does this repetition affect naming performance? 100 pictures per run (Line 115), how many runs in total for each participant? What is the content of these pictures? It's better to show a few example pictures.
3> what's the zero point in the epochs (Line 148)?
4> what is the amplitude data, is it raw data or filtered data?
8. For figures and tables:
1> No captions for supplementary figures or tables.
2> References appeared in the supplementary table 2.
3> Subscriptions in table 2 were hard to be seen.


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: BRAIN HOTHUBS AND DARK FUNCTIONAL NETWORKS: CORRELATION ANALYSIS BETWEEN AMPLITUDE AND CONNECTIVITY FOR BROCA’S APHASIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have fully addressed all my comments, I found their responses quite satisfactory
and the revised version has been much improved.


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

Input:
Title: BRAIN HOTHUBS AND DARK FUNCTIONAL NETWORKS: CORRELATION ANALYSIS BETWEEN AMPLITUDE AND CONNECTIVITY FOR BROCA’S APHASIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: The revised version added a paradigm figure and more detailed descriptions of the experimental design, which makes the manuscript more clear to be read and easier to be replicated by other researchers later.
Validity of the findings: The authors added a permutation test for the inter-group contrast analysis that increased the statistical power of the study.
But could the authors elaborate the permutation test in more detail, like which variable was shuffled?
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: POSITIVE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN COVID-19 DEATHS AND INFLUENZA VACCINATION RATES IN ELDERLY PEOPLE WORLDWIDE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript meets all the four requirements:
(1) Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
(2) The article should include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced.
(3) Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
(4) Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Experimental design: This manuscript meets all the four requirements, except the third:
(1) Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
(2) Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
(3) Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
(4) Methods should be described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator.

This study was not performed to a high technical standard. The death rate of COVID-19 is highly associated with age distribution, prevention measures, and geographical distribution. Only the influence of these factors has been excluded, the conclusion that the influenza vaccine coverage is positively associated with the death rate of COVID-19 is reliable. Therefore, the authors need to collect the data regarding age distribution, prevention measures, and geographical distribution of the countries, and then use proper statistical methods to investigate the relationship between the influenza vaccine coverage and the death rate of COVID-19.
Validity of the findings: Please see my comments above.
Additional comments: This manuscript is well written, and the topic is interesting, and the authors have found some novel data. However, the death rate of COVID-19 is highly associated with age distribution, prevention measures, and geographical distribution. Only the influence of these factors has been excluded, the conclusion that the influenza vaccine coverage is positively associated with the death rate of COVID-19 is somehow reliable. Therefore, the authors need to collect the data regarding age distribution, prevention measures, and geographical distribution of the investigated countries (not difficult), and then use proper statistical methods to investigate the relationship between the influenza vaccine coverage and the death rate of COVID-19. Otherwise, the conclusion could be wrong and misleading.


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: POSITIVE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN COVID-19 DEATHS AND INFLUENZA VACCINATION RATES IN ELDERLY PEOPLE WORLDWIDE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction needs to be improved using recent published papers, summarized and directed to address the justification.

The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text.

Line 15: Please consider using caused instead of provoked.
Line 17: Please consider eliminating potentially, using pharmacological instead of medicinal and using proposed instead of discussed.
Line 18: Please consider eliminating disease, since it is included in the acronym COVID-19. Is Influenza vaccination a protective factor or a correlation between Influenza vaccination and COVID-19 deaths have been reported?
Line 19: The justification needs to be adapted to the type of analysis the author did, the author is expanding the knowledge of this reported correlation but not explaining the cause.
Line 20: Please consider using preventing COVID-19 deaths instead of save human lives.
Line 21: Please consider using in the elderly instead of older persons and eliminating in Europe since you are doing a worldwide analysis.
Line 23: Please consider describing the statistical analysis you performed.
Line 27: Please consider using ≥ 65 yo instead of older persons, using studies are needed to prevent COVID-19 deaths.
Line 28: Please consider using caused instead of provoked
Line 36: Please consider using could influence COVID-19 severity instead of influence COVID-19 disease.
Line 37: Please consider rephrasing, COVID-19 is not a disease of only older people, but severity increases with age, using as reference: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/older-adults.html. Please consider eliminating for example.
Line 36-47: Please consider rewriting the risk factors section into one paragraph and summarizing it in a coherent and straight-forward way.
Line 48: Please consider using the term non-pharmaceutical interventions and rephrasing this sentence using as reference: Flaxman S, Mishra S, Gandy A, et al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jun 8]. Nature. 2020;10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7
Line 49: Please consider eliminating potentially and using pharmaceutical interventions instead of medical measures
Line 48-52: Please consider rewriting this pharmaceutical interventions paragraph including as references:
-Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 - Preliminary Report [published online ahead of print, 2020 May 22]. N Engl J Med. 2020;10.1056/NEJMoa2007764. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2007764
-RECOVERY Collaborative Group, Horby P, Lim WS, et al. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 - Preliminary Report [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jul 17]. N Engl J Med. 2020;10.1056/NEJMoa2021436. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2021436
-https://files.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/guidelines/section/section_85.pdf
Line 52: Please consider specifying that you are referring to COVID-19 vaccines and using as reference: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines
Line 53: Please consider introducing the concept of heterologous effects or non-specific effects of vaccines, using as reference:
- Agrawal, Babita. “Heterologous Immunity: Role in Natural and Vaccine-Induced Resistance to Infections.” Frontiers in immunology vol. 10 2631. 8 Nov. 2019, doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.02631
- Goodridge, Helen S et al. “Harnessing the beneficial heterologous effects of vaccination.” Nature reviews. Immunology vol. 16,6 (2016): 392-400. doi:10.1038/nri.2016.43
Please consider including the results and using as a reference: Pawlowski C., Puranik A., Venkatakrishnan AJ., et al. Exploratory analysis of immunization records highlights decreased SARS-CoV-2 rates in individuals with recent non-COVID-19 vaccinations. medRxiv 2020.07.27.20161976; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.27.20161976
Line 54: Please consider avoiding the use of protective factor, it is speculative since Arokiaraj performed a statistical test for correlation which does not necessarily suggest causation.
Line 61-65: Please consider summarizing the important point of the results from Wolff’s paper.
Line 66-67: Please consider rephrasing or eliminating this sentence.
Line 68: Please consider rewriting the justification of the analysis, the author is expanding the knowledge of this reported correlation but not explaining the cause.
Line 70: Please consider using in the elderly or in people ≥ 65 yo instead of older persons and eliminating in Europe since you are doing a worldwide analysis.
Experimental design: Since you are analyzing different countries, with different socioeconomic status, demographic structure, urban/rural settings, time of arrival of pandemic and national control strategies, you should consider mitigating effects of potentially confounding factors. The results might be different if you take into account all of these aspects, or only analyze similar countries that meet the same criteria.

Line 72-94: Please consider using active voice instead of passive voice. Since you are analyzing different countries, with different socioeconomic status, demographic structure, urban/rural settings, time of arrival of pandemic and national control strategies, consider mitigating effects of potentially confounding factors. Consider reviewing Escobar LE, Molina-Cruz A, Barillas-Mury C. BCG vaccine protection from severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(30):17720-17726. doi:10.1073/pnas.2008410117
Line 71: Please consider not repeating the results of the papers you have already described.
Line 75: Please consider explaining why you only chose to analyze countries with at least 0.5 million inhabitants.
Line 76: Please consider using COVID-19 deaths per million instead of dead persons by COVID-19 per Million inhabitants as the depend variable.
Line 77: Please consider using Case Fatality Ratio instead of proportion of COVID-19 deaths of confirmed infected persons.
Line 78: Please consider using COVID-19 tests per million inhabitants instead of number of tested persons for COVID-19 per million inhabitants.
Line 79: Please consider using in people ≥ 65 years old instead of persons aged 65 and older.
Line 82: Please consider eliminating also on July 25, 2020, since this data is not continuously updating and using IVRs were taken from instead of the data of IVR were taken.
Line 85-86: Please consider using 2017 Vietnam’s and Singapore’s IVR were obtained from xx and xx, respectively.
Line 88-89: Please consider explaining the statistical test you performed and if by not modified are you referring to a cofounder.
Line 104: please consider using was instead of were.
Validity of the findings: Line 113-116: please consider using contrary to what was expected instead of contrary to was expected and rephrasing the paragraph, for example, our worldwide analysis and European sub-analysis do not support the previously reported negative association between COVID-19 deaths and influenza vaccination rate.
134-140: Please consider rephrasing, the main idea is not clear.
141-144: Please consider rephrasing, the current phrasing makes comprehension difficult. Please consider using the great variation instead of strong variation and initiation of interventions instead of reaction speed.
148-149: please consider using studies are needed to prevent COVID-19 deaths instead of exploration is valuable to save human lives.
149: Please consider specifying which type of studies are suitable to explain your findings. Maybe clinical trials?

Images: Consider adding the p value so it is possible to quickly know if it is statistically significant or not

Figure legend: Consider adding the results of the statistical analysis.
Additional comments: Your most important issue is the fact of not considering the differences between countries. Since you are analyzing different countries, with different socioeconomic status, demographic structure, urban/rural settings, time of arrival of pandemic and national control strategies, you should consider mitigating effects of potentially confounding factors. The results might be different if you take into account all of these aspects, or only analyze similar countries that meet the same criteria.

The next most important item is that the introduction needs to be improved using recent published papers, summarized and directed to address the justification.

The least important is that the English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text.

153-154: Please consider rewriting this paragraph, for example: I would like to express my gratitude to xxx and xxx for their careful review and insightful 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: POSITIVE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN COVID-19 DEATHS AND INFLUENZA VACCINATION RATES IN ELDERLY PEOPLE WORLDWIDE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised manuscript meets the requirements in the aspects pertaining to English, references, structure, figures, tables, raw data sharing, and making conclusions.
Experimental design: The revised manuscript meets the requirements in the four aspects pertaining to experimental design.
Validity of the findings: The revised manuscript meets the requirements in the four aspects pertaining to validity of the findings.
Additional comments: This manuscript has been improved significantly through the revision. The authors responded well to all the comments of reviewers. It is of considerable value to be published earlier due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the coming season for influenza vaccination in the Northern Hemisphere.


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: POSITIVE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN COVID-19 DEATHS AND INFLUENZA VACCINATION RATES IN ELDERLY PEOPLE WORLDWIDE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Clear and professional English
2. Sufficient background provided with adequate references.
3. Professional figures
4. Self-Contained with relevant results to hypotheses
Experimental design: Line 97-163: Please consider using active voice instead of passive voice.
Line 100-105: Are you referring to states or countries? Please add the references for your justification. Please consider changing your abbreviation DP to a more suitable.
Line 105: Please consider rewriting this sentence, it is not clear what do you mean by based on confirmed infected people.
Line 115: Please consider explaining the statistical test you performed to conclude that the relationship between DP and the number of people tested was not statistically significant.
Line 116-121: Please consider rephrasing, maybe starting with: I calculated the Spearman rank correlation coefficients by comparing….
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Line 23-24: Please consider eliminating and a negative association was expected.
Line 25-31: The description of the statistical method you performed is still missing.
Line 42-54: Please consider rewriting the risk factors section into one paragraph and summarizing it in a coherent and straight-forward way. Since this section is not crucial for the justification of your study, it shouldn’t be two paragraphs of your introduction.
Line 55: Please consider using COVID-19 cases and deaths instead of cases of infection.
Line 62: Please consider eliminating Vitamin D, since it is considered an adjunctive therapy.
Line 63: Please consider eliminating drugs since you are already referring in this paragraph to the only two approved ones.
Line 64: Please consider using COVID-19 candidate vaccines.
Line 66-77: You didn’t introduce the concept of heterologous effects or non-specific-effects of vaccines.
Line 35-96: Please consider summarizing your introduction. You don’t need to specify the numeric results from all the papers you are referring to.
Line 97-163: Please consider using active voice instead of passive voice.
Line 100-105: Are you referring to states or countries? Please add the references for your justification. Please consider changing your abbreviation DP to a more suitable.
Line 105: Please consider rewriting this sentence, it is not clear what do you mean by based on confirmed infected people.
Line 115: Please consider explaining the statistical test you performed to conclude that the relationship between DP and the number of people tested was not statistically significant.
Line 116-121: Please consider rephrasing, maybe starting with: I calculated the Spearman rank correlation coefficients by comparing….
Line 193-260: Please consider including as an important limitation the fact that you didn’t normalize the time of arrival of the pandemic.
Line 218: Please consider using viral instead of virus infections
Line 219: Please consider using viral interference instead of virus interference
Line 233: Please consider eliminating most
Line 234: Please consider using the lack instead of a lack, using that weren’t recently affected instead of that had not been recently affected.
Line 235: Please consider using are instead of is
Line 236: Please consider eliminating is
Line 252: Please consider rephrasing, the main idea is not clear
Line 252- 260: Please consider summarizing this paragraph and emphasize the importance of this idea to your findings.


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

Input:
Title: POSITIVE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN COVID-19 DEATHS AND INFLUENZA VACCINATION RATES IN ELDERLY PEOPLE WORLDWIDE
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and professional English.
Literature references and sufficient field background provided.
Professional article figures.
Relevant results to hypothesis
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: No more 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 STRENGTH-ORIENTED EXERCISE SESSION REQUIRED MORE RECOVERY TIME THAN A POWER-ORIENTED EXERCISE SESSION WITH EQUAL WORK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors should be commended for this. Although minor revisions are needed, the basic reporting of information is very clear and progressive and uses the literature well to support key points.
One relatively major criticism though focuses on a lack of detail in key elements of the method section, particularly with regards to how force data were processed (I feel that more detail is needed) and the use of MBI statistics given recent criticism (please justify your use of this in the face of the robust criticism).
Experimental design: I think that the authors should be commended on their experimental design that is both rigorous and appropriate for the question they try to answer.
This appears to be a technically high quality study, but far more detail is required in key elements of the method section that, when addressed, would enable researchers to replicate and build on this work (please see previous section).
Validity of the findings: I think that the authors discuss their results well, but while the points they make and the conclusions they reach appear robust and meaningful, I also think that thread of the story that is been told could be clearer and that this is largely a consequence of the way the discussion has been organised - I feel that this could be both clearer and more concise but I also understand that I could be biased because of how I approached the discussion section during review.
Additional comments: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript! I feel that the authors ask a very relevant question and use appropriate experimental design and methods to answer this. I think that their results clearly contribute to the existing literature and will be practically useful/applicable.
Please see the attached, annotated PDF for more specific feedback.


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 STRENGTH-ORIENTED EXERCISE SESSION REQUIRED MORE RECOVERY TIME THAN A POWER-ORIENTED EXERCISE SESSION WITH EQUAL WORK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Unfortunately, the article doesn't make sense in many places. Thus, the authors need to edit the English and then have this reviewed.
Experimental design: It appears to be OK but the English needs to be improved.
Validity of the findings: These appear to be OK but the English needs to be improved.
Additional comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I would like to note that that the question is warranted and interesting and I commend the authors for the use of MBIs. However, please do note that it has now changed to MBDs (refer to Hopkins Sportsci website for further information).
Unfortunately, the writing of this manuscript is not up to standard and after reading just the first few paragraphs it is clear that it would not be appropriate to accept this until it is edited and the English is improved. I understand that English mightn’t be the authors first language and this does put you at a disadvantage, but this is an English speaking journal and we must abide by the rules. It is not the job of the reviewer to edit every sentence of a submitted manuscript, it is our job to uphold the scientific rigour. Therefore, for me to spend the whole time editing the English is not fair on us as reviewers. To help you (and demonstrate the magnitude of changes that are required), I have provided comments for the first paragraph (and abstract) below.
Finally, I would warn the authors against using the terms a “power session” or a “strength session”. While I understand what the authors are getting at, power can be developed through training at either intensity and so can strength (this is well-documented throughout the literature). Therefore, I would strongly advise calling them a “power-oriented” and “strength-oriented” session.

Line 30 should use “greater” rather than “more”. The word “more” doesn’t make sense in this context.
Sentence starting line 31 “In accordance…” (in particular: “…was experienced more strenuous…”) doesn’t make sense. Please fix this.
Sentence starting line 34: “In conclusion….” You are missing the word “a” after “observed” and before “larger”

Line 45, first sentence: Doesn’t make sense. Please fix this.
Sentence starting line 47: this is far too vague. The reader isn’t clear what adaptation processes you are referring to.
Sentence starting line 50: “However, our knowledge recovery processes….” This sentence doesn’t make sense.

Sentence 52: “based on the existing literature….”. This sentence is far too colloquial for an academic text.
Line 57: “recovery time levels off at a certain volume” It isn’t clear what you are meaning.

Line 59: “Moreover, when lifting weights (“isotonic” muscle work) we can expect longer recovery times with increasing relative loads; possibly as a consequence of the correspondingly higher eccentric force-generation (Faulkner et al., 1993; Black et al., 2007;Raeder et al., 2016;Hiscock et al., 2018).”
If this is the case, then why are you doing the study? You have already answered your own question.

The sentence below doesn’t make sense:
Long-lasting recovery (days) of the neuromuscular functions can largely be explained by damage and disturbances in the excitation-contraction-coupling and the myofibrillar machinery (Paulsen et al., 2012), although central (neural) fatigue may persist for some time (Nicol et al., 662006;Enoka et al., 2011;Carroll et al., 2017).


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 STRENGTH-ORIENTED EXERCISE SESSION REQUIRED MORE RECOVERY TIME THAN A POWER-ORIENTED EXERCISE SESSION WITH EQUAL WORK
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, English language usage is clear and unambiguous. However, authors should improve the density of the writing, being more straight forward and constrained to the scope of the problem and data at hand. For instance, the Intro presents a lit review, instead of the problem at hand, and the Discussion is way too speculative.

Literature references, field background and context are over provided. Even though with no major flaw, paper is not reading well as you are making excessive extrapolations based on the data that authors collected. For instance, you are talking about muscle damage, central fatigue, etc.
Experimental design: Cross-over designs cannot be implemented as completely randomized designs. Session order needs to be counterbalanced between subjects to mitigate the carryover effect, characteristic of cross-over designs. This is an important limitation of the study. Besides, the time interval (1-4 wks) between training sessions may be an important confounding factor as participants may change their training state.

The characteristics of the sample (different training backgrounds and the small sample size) may introduce important bias and variability to the findings. For instance, you have a few volleyball players, a couple bikers and physical education students.

How did you control for training load outside the study as some participants were athletes that should have trained at least a few days per week throughout the experimental protocols. Besides training background can directly affect the recovery rate and duration and you did not present any sort of control for this confounding factor.
Validity of the findings: As exercises, volume and intensity were arbitrarily selected, extrapolations to other strength and power training sessions are rather difficult.

Even though a group of sport scientists have supported the use of magnitude-based inference, a few statisticians have written papers severely criticizing this method and clearly stated that it should be abandoned. A more traditional approach would be welcome (standard inferential analyses and effect sizes). Authors should present the rational for presenting only a few correlations.

Conclusions are OK, but including RDFmax as a marker of fatigue is unreasonable as the reliability of the measurement is poor.

The introduction and discussion sections have way too much speculation and should be removed.
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: FOREST STRUCTURE DEPENDENCY ANALYSIS OF L-BAND SAR BACKSCATTER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: please see the attachments.
Experimental design: please see the attachments.
Validity of the findings: please see the attachments.
Additional comments: please see the attachments.


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: FOREST STRUCTURE DEPENDENCY ANALYSIS OF L-BAND SAR BACKSCATTER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This study examined L-band SAR backscatter sensitivity to canopy density, tree height and DBH at the sub-compartment level and concluded that canopy density showed a great influence on L-band backscatter than mean forest height and DBH and the sensitivity of L-band backscatter to tree height and DBH was affected by canopy density. The manuscript is well written and presented.
Experimental design: Regarding the metholodogy, there are still some major concerns that should be addressed.

1. The authors used Pearson Correlation Coefficient R to analyze the sensitivities between forest parameters (i.e., canopy density, tree height and DBH) and radar backscatter. As shown in Figures 2-5, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient seems to be linear model. It is concerned that the linear model may not be appropriate for this study because more advanced nonlinear models may be commonly used for retrieving forest parameters from radar images. When using the different models, the retrieved relationship between forest parameters and radar backscatter could be very different. For example, forest height may not have a strong correction with radar backscatter when a linear model is used for the investigation, but they may be highly related when turning to a nonlinear model. Therefore, I suggest the authors to conduct a more extensive literature review on the models that are commonly used for radar remote sensing of forest parameters and used these models instead of the linear model to examine the sensitivities between forest parameters and radar backscatter. Otherwise, the findings and conclusions of this study may not be convincing.

2. Are there mountain areas in the study area? It is well known that radar backscatter is affected by the terrain. For example, forests in the slope facing the SAR sensor feature stronger radar backscatter than forests in the shadow or flatten areas. How did this study deal with such terrain effect?

3. Since the SAR images were acquired at the different dates in the period from June to September, the SAR backscatter of forest may be affected by forest phenology. Did the authors consider such phenology effect in this study?
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: FOREST STRUCTURE DEPENDENCY ANALYSIS OF L-BAND SAR BACKSCATTER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment.
Experimental design: no comment.
Validity of the findings: no comment.
Additional comments: In this new manuscript, all of the issues I mentioned have been modified, only one problem. The expressions and your reasoning are now clearer and profounder.
The authors have added the new experiment to show the correlations and relationships between mean forest age and SAR backscatter, mean forest height and SAR backscatter, and mean DBH and SAR backscatter, respectively, which are listed in Table 6-14. I think it’s too lengthy. Under this condition, I suggest these 9 tables should be merged into one table for brevity.


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: FOREST STRUCTURE DEPENDENCY ANALYSIS OF L-BAND SAR BACKSCATTER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all my concerns. I have no further comments.


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

Input:
Title: SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIRTUAL FENCING IN SHEEP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The idea is very interesting. I congratulate the authors for a smart idea joining their knowledge in social behavior, learning processes, novel technology for sheep production, and an applied view. However, there is one important limitation. Authors explained that ewes learn from each other, what means that the behavior of each ewe is not independent from the behavior of other ewes, and thus, data from each ewe into each group are not really independent. Some researchers would consider that in this case, the lack of replications implies that the study is not correct, but I disagree with that view (what are real replications in field conditions in which is impossible to really replicate conditions?), so I feel that this does not prevent from publishing it. However, considering the limited of individuals in each condition and the lack of replications, I suggest that the article should be considered as a short communication, as
Another point in which I suggest to be more cautious are the conclusions. Groups were composed by 9 animals, although the main problem is related to big flocks, and there was only one repetition with each percentage of animals. The idea and the study itself are useful, but the conclusions should be more limited.
Experimental design: Limited due to the lack of repetitions.
Validity of the findings: Interesting considerint that are the first approaches to this strategy
Additional comments: The idea is very interesting. I congratulate the authors for a smart idea joining their knowledge in social behavior, learning processes, novel technology for sheep production, and an applied view. However, there is one important limitation. Authors explained that ewes learn from each other, what means that the behavior of each ewe is not independent from the behavior of other ewes, and thus, data from each ewe into each group are not really independent. Some researchers would consider that in this case, the lack of replications implies that the study is not correct, but I disagree with that view (what are real replications in field conditions in which is impossible to really replicate conditions?), so I feel that this does not prevent from publishing it. However, considering the limited of individuals in each condition and the lack of replications, I suggest that the article should be considered as a short communication, as
Another point in which I suggest to be more cautious are the conclusions. Groups were composed by 9 animals, although the main problem is related to big flocks, and there was only one repetition with each percentage of animals. The idea and the study itself are useful, but the conclusions should be more limited.

Introduction
It is a bit long, so I suggest summarizing it approximately 25%. It will also be reorganized, as there are many specific results acknowledged when are not necessary. Including the main concepts would be enough.
I suggest to include first the hypothesis, and then the objective, which responds the hypothesis. The hypothesis was raised by the authors before doing the study, so it should be in past tense.
Considering the authors background, I suggest to include a more directed third hypothesis. Differing is too vague.
M&M
L176-177: Authors stated that “The CIDR’s were leached of hormone in a water bath prior to use.”. However, CIDRs contain progesterone, which is not dissolved in water. Did authors checked that CIDRs were empty from progesterone? If not, how can this affect the treatments?
L202-210: How were the animals fed during those days? The only food were pastures? Therefore, which types and availability. This may affect widely ewes behavior, also in relation to what they are willing to take risks to access or not to other pastures. This. And the pastures on the areas of the paddocks separated by the virtual fences should be described in detail.
L235-236: I am not sure if I understood it correctly, but a “within group” comparison should not be done with a paired t-test, as t-tests are for independent data. If I understood correctly, data were collected more than once from the same animals, and thus, were repeated from the same animals, which is not the same as paired.
L253: Here it is described that “Due to data collection occurring across different days”, but I could not find where that was explained. If it was, I agree that it is an important limitation that should be acknowledged in the Discussion. If data were not recorded simultaneously, many environmental factors could affect the behavior of the animals.
Discussion: I think that this section needs work. Mainly, there is a lot of repetition of results without deep analysis of what is behind those results. I could not have clear the main ideas of some paragraphs. Considering the novelty of the study, I expect authors to go deeper in their findings, but considering the limitations of the study. I hope they can explore more the whole picture instead of each isolated piece (or result).
L311-318: it is mainly a repetition of results. We read the results in the corresponding section, so begin this section with your main new outputs.
L314-316: However, there was not a “control period”, so with few animals and no repetitions, these differences may be related to the flock behavior, and not to the treatments. At least, authors cannot discard this possibility and should mention it.
L319-335: For me it is not clear which is the main point here.
L358-362: I am not sure of this. Does synchronization of social behavior is the same in groups of different size? Are there studies demonstrating this?
L370-400: I suggest going more directly to the point. Why did you recorded behavior and measured temperatures? What did you expect (for that, it would be useful to have a more clear third hypothesis in the Introduction)? Therefore, what are you stating in relation to that hypothesis? As it is here, it seems as if it was measured just to see what is coming and not according to specific hypothesis. The study did not need these data, which are mainly just a complementary data (especially temperature), so, I would expect to have more direct information on what do you consider that is outcoming here (or excluding that data).


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: SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIRTUAL FENCING IN SHEEP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: A clear level of English is used throughout this article.

The introduction clearly sets the context for the use of virtual fences in sheep, as well as the current state of knowledge on this topic.

The structure of the article agrees with the professional intro/methods/results/discussion structure, and raw data has been shared by the authors.

The article provides relevant results to address the hypotheses raised in the introduction.
Experimental design: The research presented in this article is meaningful to extend and develop virtual fences on a commercial scale. The knowledge gap is clearly presented : can we use virtual fencing at group level ? And can we use virtual fencing effectively by controlling only a proportion of the flock ?

The potential negative impact of virtual fencing on sheep welfare is highlighted, and evaluated by the research presented in this article.

See below for comments on specific parts of the methods/results sections:

158 sqq: were the 36 sheep housed together at night ? And separated into their experimental groups during the day only ? Or were they kept in their experimental groups at all times ?

181: Were the sheep already used to wearing accelerometers ?

Did you consider using heart rate monitors as well as thermometers and accelerometers to evaluate stress and potential negative impact on welfare ?

193: A drone ! How exciting !

198sqq: How did you choose which sheep were going to wear a virtual fence ? I may have missed it, but did you use the leader/follower classification you had established ?

217: Could you give more details on how the impact of the electric shock on the ewes welfare, physiology, behaviour was evaluated, and then deemed acceptable ?

254 : Is there anyway you could balance variations in outdoor temperatures to still be able to compare the variations between all groups ? I am not familiar with temperatures parameters, but it would definitely be very interesting and useful to have a full comparison.
Validity of the findings: All data has been provided by the authors.

Conclusions are clear and linked to the research questions stated in the introduction. This article is a preliminary step into further studies that will need to include larger groups of animals over a larger period of time, which is a limitation clearly stated by the authors.

See below for specific comments.
333: Very interesting indeed.

348: Do you think sheep behaviour would have continued to change with a longer testing phase and the virtual fence might have been ineffective for the 66% group after a week or more ?

360: Good point made on sheep behaviour in small groups

Have you looked at "who" in the flock was wearing the virtual fence ? In the 66% andn 33% groups, which sheep (leader or follower) were equipped with the virtual fence ?
Did you look at the leader/follower status of the sheep withing each group in your analysis ?
Additional comments: Thanks for this very interesting paper, it is always nice to see how virtual fencing is developping as it has a lot of potential for extensively reared livestock.

I hope the comments made above will be clear, I would be particularly interested in knowing more about the link between the personality type of each sheep that you identified (leader/follower) and its impact on the group behaviour, depending on who was wearing the virtual fence.


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: SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIRTUAL FENCING IN SHEEP
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The topic of the manuscript is very interesting and valuable for the scientific and farming communities. The language is clear and the manuscript is overall well written. The structure follows the classical rules.

Detailed input:
Introduction:
The introduction implies that virtual fencing in general works for sheep. However, there is no virtual fencing system to my knowledge commercially available for sheep and although there is evidence that it worked in some studies, there is also evidence, for the opposite effct (e.g. Brunberg et al. 2015 and 2017). The sequence of the introduction should therefore be improved. After Line 90, it would be important to state the fact from Line 128f that virtual fencing currently does not exist as a commercial system for sheep. Otherwise a false impression is given.

The reference Brunberg et al. (2016) was stated to support the statement that “sheep have shown that they readily learn to respond…”. However, after reading Brunberg’s publication I cannot quite follow your train of thought. Brunberg et al. have stated in their conclusions that “… only nine out of 24 ewes learned to deal with the virtual fencing system in three repetitions…”. It should be noted that for a second experiment containing the ewes, only the nine sheep were chosen from the first experiment which learned to deal with the virtual fence in the Brunberg study.

Line 86f: “Virtual fencing currently requires all animals to have the virtual fence implemented…” This sentence is not correct. Most people assume that this is the case but there is neither a strict rule nor a regulation. Moreover, the described study looks into the feasibility of a reduction of collard animals but no technical changes are targeted. I would recommend to rephrase that sentence.

Line 101: Please clarify the message you want to convey. Did you chose the example of Brunberg et al. (2017) because the lambs were not collared?

Please check manuscript for spaces between numbers and mathematical signs. Sometimes there is a space between the number and the %-sign, sometimes there is no space. The same is true for numbers and =-signs.

References:
E. I. Brunberg, K. E. Bøe & K. M. Sørheim was published 2015 and not 2016, also something regarding the authors’ names seems to be mixed up in the reference.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined and relevant. It is a very intersting topic. However, the study is based on very small numbers. It is correctly mentioned in the manuscript that sheep show a strong flocking and synchronization behaviour (Line 138). That means that for testing the efficacy of virtual fencing, there is really only n = 1 for each treatment (Figure 2) in the described study. Further, the four treatment groups had an allocated paddock. No change of paddock was included in the experimental design as a block factor. In addition, the groups had access to their paddocks for two consecutive days for six hours. Here a better spread across days would have improved the design.
I appreciate that quite a bit if work is involved in such a study. Yet, from the statistical point of view such a small data set with confounding design should be seen as critical.

Detailed input:
Material and Method:
Could you please provide details regarding the weather on the 4 experimental days as this might have an impact on the results as stated by Brunberg et al. (2015). Especially in an international context it can be difficult to guess for the reader what the weather is like in another country.

Could you also please provide information on the amount of wool the sheep had during the trials. Was this shortly after shearing? Have you done specific preparations before the sheep were collared?

Line 231 the use of R packages is mentioned here, then only one package is named. Could you please change it either to singular or add the other packages you have used.
Validity of the findings: The topic is novel and would provide useful information. It is also stated that further research is needed by the authors. However, due to the small numbers included in the study and the difficulties with the study design, the results should be looked at with caution.

The identification of stress signs with a cosinor analysis is a very nice idea. However, as we are talking rather small sample sizes, looking at the results in Table 4 I am not entirely convinced even if some of the results show a significant difference. One should keep in mind that there is a 1 in 20 risk to find a difference that does not exist if we assume α = 0.05. Looking at Figure 3, one can also not identify a clear trend due to the variation, even if the standing behaviour is on both days high for “Treatment 33%”. It might be the case that there is indeed an effect but it does need more data to support it.

On the other hand, Tables 2 and 3 are very interesting to get an understanding about the responses.
Additional comments: It is very difficult to judge the paper as it has positive and negative aspects. I think the experimental design is not strong enough for a full paper. However, there is still valuable information in there if there is a publication option as a technical note. Therefore, it is with regret that I would recommend it for rejection.


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: SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIRTUAL FENCING IN SHEEP
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors did a good job, improving the content of the article.I still consider that the Introduction is too long. I suggest to go more directly to what you aim to test. There are too many details describing previous studies.
L80: delete “available”, as it is repeated
Experimental design: The design has an important limitation as different groups were tested in different days. I can understand the limitations in devices and observers, but this should be more strongly considered as a limitation in the Discussion.
Validity of the findings: The findings are important and have potential impact. Are limited due to the limitation of the design, number of animals, etc, but in an area with scarce research, the results might contribute to develop it.
Additional comments: Thank you for your receptiveness.


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: SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIRTUAL FENCING IN SHEEP
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: Thank you for adressing comments, no further remarks.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Many thanks for this updated version and for adressing reviewer's 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: SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIRTUAL FENCING IN SHEEP
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The points I have raised in the last review regarding the basic reporting are satisfactorily answered and the manuscript amended accordingly.
Experimental design: The challenges of the very limited experimental design are more prominently reported now. This adds value to the paper and makes sure that readers do take the limitations more sufficiently into account.
Validity of the findings: The above comment also answers this section.
Additional comments: I am ok if the manuscript will get accepted and published now.


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: SOCIAL INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VIRTUAL FENCING IN SHEEP
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is ready for acceptance
Experimental design: The article is ready for acceptance
Validity of the findings: The article is ready for acceptance
Additional comments: The article is ready for acceptance


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 OF AREAS OF VERY HIGH BIODIVERSITY VALUE TO ACHIEVE THE EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY FOR 2030 KEY COMMITMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	There are several sections where the writing could be improved for clarity. I have provided specific examples below.
Line 20: remove “the” in “the protected areas”
Line 21: rewrite to area of high biodiversity value
Line 22: add “the” after “of”
Line 30: Starting the methods section of the abstract with “the planning exercise” is vague and confusing. It would help if more specific language was used such as “We used 315 terrestrial… in our spatial prioritization analysis”.
Line 32: Is there a difference between terrestrial Natura 2000 and Natura 2000? Please clarify
Line 33: should be km2
Lines 40-42: These sentences need more context to be understood by a reader that has not read your whole paper already.
The authors overuse the phrase “when considering” and in most cases it can be dropped from the sentence to improve readability (example on line 40-41, line 226, line 235, etc.)
Line 54-55: rewrite to “They should support as many rare, threatened or endemic taxa, particularly those with low mobility and high sensitivity to environmental alterations as possible”
Line 63: “by 2030 to 30%” is awkward. I suggest rewriting so the year and percentage are not beside each other.
Line 78: I suggest cutting “and except for an agreement on better than random planning performance” as it does not add much to the sentence and makes it harder to read.
Line 123: which dataset? Please be specific
Line 126: I think you mean < 1km2
Line 138: change records to record
Line 147-147: rewrite to: “the Natura 2000 network overlaps”
Line 165: Please merge this paragraph with the previous
Line 165: what is meant by grid cells?
Line 166: add “the” after “for”
Line 167: what do you mean by “remaining characteristics of the analysis?
Line 171: Please explain what is meant by “between the characteristics”
Line 173-174: please explain what the additive benefit function is. Non-expert readers may not be familiar with this function.
Line 174: please remove “representing the exponent”
Line 176: please explain this line for a non-expert reader.
Line 178: consider changing “covering” to “conserving”
Line 179-180: The sentence beginning with “Zonation” is repetitive and can be removed.
Line 186: please remove “falling”
Line 193-194: I am unclear what is meant by this sentence. Would you please clarify and elaborate on this result further. I do not understand the difference between the first set of planning units (48954) and the second set of planning units (4920)
Line 305: what is meant by “poor coverage of invertebrates”? and “Invertebrates are overlooked”. Please elaborate.
Line 327: do you mean occurrence data not distribution data?
Line 341: I don’t know if scale is the right word to look at here, but perhaps this could be rewritten to it is important to focus on biogeographical context when planning priority areas?
2.	The authors provide a good amount of background information and the manuscript is well cited. However, I think the authors should include why including biogeographic regions is important in the introduction as it is part of their research question, yet it is not mentioned in the introduction.
3.	The structure of the discussion needs improvement. The authors mainly restate their results within the discussion without adding much additional interpretation.
The first paragraph of the discussion should begin with the research objective then quickly summarize the main findings of the paper. Currently, there is too much emphasis introducing the research question and only one results point is mentioned.
Each paragraph in the discussion is missing an explanation of the relevance or significance of the findings leaving the reader wondering “so what”? What does it mean that invertebrates are driving the taxa specific example? What can be done about the lack of invertebrate surveys? What is the significance of the biogeographical scenario performing the best? Why might this be the case? Have other studies found this as well?
The conclusion section is also very limited in details and needs to be elaborated on (see validity of findings section for more details on the conclusion).
4.	Table 1: it is unclear which scenario this data is referring to. Please clarify in the legend. Also, it is hard to follow the table currently. Consider adding horizontal lines or increasing the spaces between rows so that it is easier to read. Does a zero mean that for all those species in the row they were never prioritized? Please clarify.
The figures are well drawn and are easy to interpret.
Experimental design: 1.	The research question is well defined and is an important question to address. This study addresses an important knowledge gap.
2.	I would like to see more information provided about where the species occurrence data came from and how it was collected, and at what year was the data collected. Did the authors consider other sources of species occurrence data such as GBIF or iNaturalist which could increase resolution of the species surveys, which is a major limitation of this study. If not, why did the authors choose not to use other data sources?
3.	The methods appear sound and are generally well reported, but may need to be explained in more plain language for non-experts to understand. I provided specific examples in the basic reporting section.
Validity of the findings: 1.	The findings appear to be valid, but the implications of the findings need to be elaborated upon (see basic reporting section). The conclusion needs to be elaborated upon to be more specific and to provide concrete examples of future work that could be conducted and the relevance of the study. The finding that biogeography needs to be considered and that current efforts looking at the national scale will perform poorly is very interesting and will be extremely important for designating future protected areas and I think that needs to be really highlighted within the conclusion section. Consider the following for expanding your conclusion section: what will the outcome be if non-systematic planning continues in the future? What will the outcome be if a national scale is used? What about the importance of continued species monitoring to improve occurrence data and how might that influence future decisions?
Additional comments: This study is very interesting and topical and the questions posed are important and need to be addressed. The authors did an excellent job making the case for the need to consider biogeography in planning protected areas.