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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AVERAGE SLOPE IN THE ACTIVE COMMUTING TO AND FROM SCHOOL AND FITNESS IN ADOLESCENTS: THE MEDIATOR ROLE OF FATNESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Tittle
I suggest some minor changes in the title in order to understand that the “active commuting to and from school” is examined. I would put “Relationship between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school and fitness in adolescents: the mediator role of fatness”
Abstract
Given the aim of the study was to examine the relationships between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school and the strength of the lower limbs and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), it would be advisable to change the previous sentence of the aim. For example, “Active commuting to and from school has been recognized as a potential way to improve physical fitness”.
I would suggest changing “the aims of the study tested the” for “This study examined the relationships between…”
I would suggest changing “active commuting to school” for “active commuting to and from school”
I would suggest changing “showed a positive association between the average slope” for “showed a positive association between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school”

Set a point before moreover (i.e., Moreover the results shown a significant indirect effect in the two models).

I would suggest changing “These results are very relevant, as, till now, no studies were found using objective measurements of active commuting like Google Earth Pro software” for “Given to our knowledge, no studies to date have used objective measurements to assess active commuting to and from school, these findings are promising”

Please, rewrite the conclusions. From my point of view, the conclusion are “The average slope to and from school were positive associated…” instead of “Adolescents who actively commuted to school were positive associated with…”

I suggest adding the word “body mass index” or “body fat”, “walking” o “cycling” in the keywords.

Introduction

I would suggest changing “active commuting to school” for “active commuting to and from school” throughout the manuscript.

Given the aim of the study was to examine the relationships between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school and the strength of the lower limbs and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), it would be advisable to add in this sentence physical fitness “Active forms of transportation have been recognized as potential ways to increase daily physical activity, providing an alternative to other physical activity domains such as sport and exercise (Heath et al., 2012; Sahlqvist, Song, & Ogilvie, 2012). In addition, I would put “active commuting to and from school” instead of “active forms of transportation” given the context of the study.
For example “Active commuting to and from school have been recognized as potential way to increase daily physical activity or improve physical fitness among adolescents”
I would suggest readind and adding these references in this sentence and throughout the manuscript.

Larouche, R., Saunders, T. J., Faulkner, G. E. J., Colley, R., & Tremblay, M. (2014). Associations between active school transport and physical activity, body composition, and cardiovascular fitness: a systematic review of 68 studies. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 11(1), 206-227.
Martin, A., Kelly, P., Boyle, J., Corlett, F., & Reilly, J. J. (2016). Contribution of walking to school to individual and population moderate-vigorous intensity physical activity: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatric exercise science, 28(3), 353-363.
I would suggest changing the order of some of the paragraphs in the introduction. I would put the following paragraph behind “Active commuting to and from school have been recognized as potential way to increase daily physical activity or improve physical fitness among adolescents”

Previous research has shown that children and adolescents who actively commute to school increase their levels of physical activity between 5 and 37 minutes (Mammen
et al., 2014). Andersen et al. (Lars Bo Andersen et al., 2011) tested the benefits of this increase in children, reporting lower levels of body fat and a lower probability of heart disease. In this regard, Ramírez-Vélez et al. (Ramírez-Vélez et al., 2017) showed that regular active commuting to school may be associated with greater fitness and a lower incidence of metabolic sindrome than using passive transportation, especially in girls. Along with the health risks commonly associated with obesity and overweight (Buckley, Lowry, Brown, & Barton, 2013), there is considerable scientific literature highlighting negative biomechanical changes such as developing unfavourable gait patterns and skeletal misalignments of the lower limbs (Buliung, Faulkner, Beesley, & Kennedy, 2011; Buliung, Mitra, & Faulkner, 2009; Chillón et al., 2011).

I would suggest removing these two sentences “Moreover, walking may be perceived as an easier, safer, and cheaper option, especially for those who are less active. Walking is a more familiar activity, it does not require special equipment and is less likely to involve direct competition for road space with motorised traffic (Morris & Hardman, 1997).”

In the sentence “Different studies have indicated a decrease in the use of active modes of transportation to school during adolescence in many countries (USA, United Kingdom, Australia and Spain) (Chillón et al., 2013; Department for Transport, 2008)” I would suggest adding “Despite the well-known health benefits of active commuting to and from school, different studies have indicated a decrease in the use of active modes of transportation to school during adolescence in many countries (USA, United Kingdom, Australia and Spain) (Chillón et al., 2013; Department for Transport, 2008).

In the sentence “Interest in the influence of environmental factors on adolescents has increased in recent times (Adams et al., 2011; Sallis et al., 2016), valuing different aspects in order to categorize transport as active or inactive (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2019).” I would put “Due to this decrease, interest in the potential correlates of active commuting to and from school has increased in the last years”

I would suggest readind and adding these references:

Ikeda, E., Stewart, T., Garrett, N., Egli, V., Mandic, S., Hosking, J., ... & Moore, A. (2018). Built environment associates of active school travel in New Zealand children and youth: A systematic meta-analysis using individual participant data. Journal of Transport & Health, 9, 117-131.

Ikeda, E., Hinckson, E., Witten, K., & Smith, M. (2018). Associations of children's active school travel with perceptions of the physical environment and characteristics of the social environment: a systematic review. Health & place, 54, 118-131.
What sections do the authors refer to in this sentence? Which means a “higher positive slope”? How many meters are we talking about? Is there any study about the relationship of the average slope to active commuting to and from school and positive outcomes in youth?

Recently, it has been shown that sections with a higher positive slope are characterized by producing internal mechanical work, involving greater muscular activity and increasing the linear energy demand (Ehrström et al., 2017; Vernillo et al., 2016).

In the sentence “On the other hand, physical activity levels have been widely highlighted as a positive predictor of fitness and a negative predictor of fatness (Janssen & LeBlanc, 2010).” I would suggest adding this reference:

Poitras, V. J., Gray, C. E., Borghese, M. M., Carson, V., Chaput, J. P., Janssen, I., ... & Sampson, M. (2016). Systematic review of the relationships between objectively measured physical activity and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 41(6), S197-S239.

There is a typographical error in this sentence. For example, Serrano-Sánchez et al. (Serrano-Sánchez et al., 2010) found that adiposity mediated the associations between physical activity and fitness in active adult men.

There is a another typographical error in this sentence. “Additionally, Arngrímsson
and Ólafsdóttir (Arngrímsson & Ólafsdóttir, 2016) demonstrated that % body fat mediated over a third of the relationship between physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness in late adolescents”.

I would suggest being more cautious in this sentence (see red colour). However, to our knowledge there are not study that evaluated if adiposity could affect in the associations between active commuting and fitness components.

In the aims I would put “average slope to and from school”

In the hypotheses, I would put “average slope to and from school” instead of “the average slope during active commuting to the school”

In the hypotheses, I would put “…to achieve higher levels of cardiorespiratory
fitness.”

Method

Design and Participants

Authors point out “The participants selected were those who enrolled in the Program to Promote Physical Activity and Healthy Habits in Adolescents”.

- Please put all words in lower case as it is not the name of a program.
- Was it a school-based intervention or a extracurricular intervention? Please, indicate in the text

Please, rephrase this sentence. “The present investigation was a cross-sectional by conglomerate”.

How many schools did the study sample come from?
Please put “active commuters” instead of “active”.

Please put “final sample” instead of “reference sample”.

In the “design and participants” section, authors said “For the analysis, only those students classified as Active (see Active Commuting p. 7) were taken as a reference
sample”. However, in the “instruments” section authors said “The students’ classification according to the type and number of trips and distance to the school was: Active, Mixed, or Inactive (Mora-Gonzalez et al., 2017)” Therefore, did only active commueters participate in this study? Please, clarify this issue.

Procedure

Please put these four sentences together “All gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. … Participation was voluntary and confidential. Written informed consent was obtained from parents and participants. Students who did not present the informed consent were excluded from the study”

Instruments

Authors point out “The number of trips and the transportation mode used by students
travel to and from school were calculated with two self-reported questions (Herrador-Colmenero, Pérez-García, Ruiz, & Chillón, 2014; Mora-Gonzalez et al., 2017; Muntaner-Mas et al., 2018; Saelens & Handy, 2008)” What were those two questionnaires? There are four references.

Authors point out “The first question asked how they habitually traveled to school and the second asked how they habitually returned from school.” I would put (See red colour) “The first question asked how they habitually traveled to school each day of the week (i.e., from Monday to Friday) and the second asked how they habitually returned from school each day of the week (i.e., from Monday to Friday)”

Please, rephrase this sentence “A total of ten weekly trips were established if they reported walking to and from the institute and zero trips if they reported traveling by car, bus, or motorbike”

Please, put “Aerobic capacity” instead of “Aerobic Capacity”
Please, put “Active commuting” instead of “Active Commuting”.

Please, change the name of this study variable “Classification as Active, Mixed, or Inactive.”. For example, active commuter, mixed commuter, and passive commuter.
Please change the name of this study variable throughout the article to avoid misunderstandings.

Covariates

Which is CRF and CA? Please, clarify it. In many parts of the text the authors use “active commuting” and in anothers sections “AC”. Please, unify this word.

Results

Please, put “active commuters” instead of “active students” in this sentence “Table 1 shows the characteristics of body composition, fitness, and the active
transportation to school of the active students”

Please, change “active subjects” for “active commuters”

In addition, authors said “The students’ classification according to the type and number of trips and distance to the school was: Active, Mixed, or Inactive (Mora-Gonzalez et al., 2017)” and “These classification criteria were based on the findings of (Martínez-Gómez et al., 2011; Ruiz-Ariza, de la Torre-Cruz, Redecillas-Peiró, & Martínez-López, 2015; Villa-González, Ruiz, et al., 2016) (Figure 1)” What is the reference for choosing these criteria from all of these studies? Please, clarify it.

Given that the authors excluded students who reported bicycling as an active means of transport, I wonder if it wouldn't be more precise put “walking to and from school” instead of “active commuting to and from school” throughout the manuscript.

Please rephrase this sentence. “The results of the active subjects did not reveale significant differences between to sex for age, weight, subscapular fold, strength of the lower limb, number of trips/week, distance, time and average slope (all p > 0.05). Among which groups were there no differences in the study variables?

Please add “significantly” in this sentence “However, the girls had significantly higher values of the tricipital folds, % body fat and VO2máx than the boys (all p < 0.01).

Put “between” instead of “netween”

Put “active, mixed and inactive commuters” instead of “active, mixed and inactive
groups”.

Please, put “participants” or “students” or “adolescents” instead of “subjects”

Discussion

It is important to try to justify some of the results found in the discussion.

Please remove “during actively commuting to school” in the first hypothesis.
Please remove “when actively commuting” in the second hypothesis.

I would put “the average slope to and from school” instead of “the average slope during active commuting to the school”

In the figure 1, I would put “active commuter, mixed commuter, and passive commuter” instead of “active participants, etc.”

I would put “the average slope to and from school” instead of “the average slope covered”.

Please remove “when actively commuting to school” in this sentence “To date, the present study is the first research that associates the average slope of the route when actively commuting to school with the physical and anthropometric characteristics of active adolescents.”

There is a typographical error in this sentence “Chillón et al. (Chillón et al., 2011)”

Authors said “The contributions of the present investigation contrast with most of the prior research collected in the review by Chillón et al. (Chillón et al., 2011; Muntaner-Mas et al., 2018), who confirmed that most investigations carried out to date have focused on using active commuting to school as a means of promoting physical activity, without evaluating the physical or anthropometric benefits that this could generate for the students” Please, review this systematic review and reformulate this sentence.

Larouche, R., Saunders, T. J., Faulkner, G. E. J., Colley, R., & Tremblay, M. (2014). Associations between active school transport and physical activity, body composition, and cardiovascular fitness: a systematic review of 68 studies. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 11(1), 206-227.
Please consider putting this paragraph in another section. For example, to highlight strengths of this study. “Several studies have pointed out the lack of objectivity and quantification of the instruments used in most research assessing active commuting (Batista et al., 2018; Chillón et al., 2011; Muntaner-Mas et al., 2018). Taking into account these limitations, we decided to use Google Earth Pro software, an instrument whose validity and reliability has been previously confirmed (Villa-González, Rodríguez-López, et al., 2016).”

Authors said “As far as we know, there is no obvious association between AC and cardiorespiratory fitness among children and adolescents (Villa-González et al., 2015).”
Please, review this reference to reformulate this paragraph.

Larouche, R., Saunders, T. J., Faulkner, G. E. J., Colley, R., & Tremblay, M. (2014). Associations between active school transport and physical activity, body composition, and cardiovascular fitness: a systematic review of 68 studies. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 11(1), 206-227.
There is a typographical error in this reference (L. B. Andersen, Lawlor, Cooper, Froberg, & Anderssen, 2009; Østergaard, Kolle, Steene-Johannessen, Anderssen, & Andersen, 2013).

There is a typographical error in this reference Villa-González et al. (Villa-González et al., 2015)

In this sentence “In this regard, Villa-González et al. (Villa-González et al., 2015) were not able to find significant associations between AC and physical fitness variables such as cardiorespiratory fitness and lower muscular fitness for boys” I would put “…were not found significant…”

Please, change “as a polluting variable” for “as a contaminating variable”

There are two sentences in the discussion section that are very similar “In relation to these results, our study does not attempt to find differences between active, mixed and inactive groups, since it is more than demonstrated (Villa-González et al., 2015)” and
“Taking into account the previous literature, this research does not intend to study the differences between active, mixed or inactive students”. Please, reconsider remove one of them.

Please, reformulate this sentence “Taking into account the mediating effect of body fat on the association of the average slope with the strength lower limbs and average slope withVO2max”

In this sentence “Therefore, our study concludes that the average slope presents a positive association between the levels of strength of the lower limbs and VO2máx of students classified as active. In addition, the mediating effect of body fat in the associations of the average slope with streght lower limbs and the average slope with VO2máx.” I would put “Therefore, the main finding of this study is that the average slope to and from school is positively associated with the levels of strength of the lower limbs and VO2máx of students classified as active commuters. In addition, the mediating effect of body fat in the associations of the average slope to and from school with strenght lower limbs and the average slope to and from school with VO2máx is another important finding”

In this sentence “The temporal stability of the habit of actively commuting was not assessed,” I would put “The temporal stability of active commuting to and from school…”

Please put a reference in this limitation “The temporal stability of the habit of actively commuting was not assessed, as it is subject to climatological variables that are very difficult to control, such as a prolonged period of rain, winter cold...”

For example, Herrador‐Colmenero, M., Harrison, F., Villa‐González, E., Rodríguez‐López, C., Ortega, F. B., Ruiz, J. R., ... & Chillón, P. (2018). Longitudinal associations between weather, season, and mode of commuting to school among Spanish youths. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports, 28(12), 2677-2685.

Conclusions

Please, rewrite the conclusions. From my point of view, the conclusion are “The average slope to and from school were positive associated…” instead of “Adolescents who actively commuted to school were positive associated with…”

I would put “These results are promising because there are no studie to date that have examined the relationships of the study variables using and objective measurement of active commuting such as the Google Earth software” instead of “These results are very relevant because, to date, no studies were found that used an objective measurement of active commuting such as the Google Earth software.”


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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AVERAGE SLOPE IN THE ACTIVE COMMUTING TO AND FROM SCHOOL AND FITNESS IN ADOLESCENTS: THE MEDIATOR ROLE OF FATNESS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I want to thank you again for the opportunity to review the Manuscript ID: Relationship between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school and fitness in adolescents: the mediator role of fatness (#41013). This manuscript is an excellent contribution to the literature on the relationship between the average slope in the active
commuting to and from school and fitness in adolescents.

I was surprised by the quality of the authors’ revision effort. Frankly, I thought the reviewers were asking too much of the authors to handle/revise, but the author team carried out an excellent revision. Specifically, the authors have strengthened the introduction and discussion section. My personal recommendation is to accept the manuscript with minor changes.
Experimental design: Nothing to add.
Validity of the findings: Nothing to add.
Additional comments: I want to thank you again for the opportunity to review the Manuscript ID: Relationship between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school and fitness in adolescents: the mediator role of fatness (#41013). This manuscript is an excellent contribution to the literature on the relationship between the average slope in the active
commuting to and from school and fitness in adolescents.

I was surprised by the quality of the authors’ revision effort. Frankly, I thought the reviewers were asking too much of the authors to handle/revise, but the author team carried out an excellent revision. Specifically, the authors have strengthened the introduction and discussion section. My personal recommendation is to accept the manuscript with minor changes.
Abstract
1.- I would suggest changing “test the relationships between the average slope and physical fitness,…” for ““test the relationships between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school and physical fitness,…”.

2.- I would suggest changing “were assessed” for “participated in this study”.
3) I would suggest changing “Specifically, in the active commuter,” for “Specifically, in the active commuter group”.
4) I would suggest changing “which in turn was related” for “which in turn was positively related”.
Introduction
1.- I would suggest changing “Active Commuting (AC) can be defined….” for “Active commuting to and from school (ACS) can be defined…”. I would also change “AC” for “ACS” throughout the article.
2.- Please remove this sentence because the idea is repeated in the above sentence “Previous research has shown that adolescents who actively commute to school can increase each day their levels of physical activity between 5 and 37 minutes (Mammen et al., 2014)”.
3.- Please change “AC to and from school” for “ACS”

4.- Please, change the order of these two references (Mytton, Panter & Ogilvie, 2016; Carson et al., 2016).

5.- How many hypotheses are in the study? Two or four? It is not clear.

Derived from these aims, 1) the main hypotheses were: the average slope during AC to and from school contributes to develop physical fitness, and 2) to achieve better levels of cardiorespiratory fitness. In accordance with the aims indicated, several hypotheses are suggested. The first hypothesis suggested that the active commuters would have a better physical fitness. The second hypothesis proposed that the active commuters would have a lesser fatness and as a consequence would have a better physical fitness.

Method

Design and Participants

1.- Some parts in the “Sample section” are written in future tense (e.g., The invitation to participate in the study will be made by draw). I would use past tense (e.g., The invitation to participate in the study was made…)
2.- Add the name of your university because it not a blind review.
Instruments
1.- I would change the name of the variable “active commuting” for “active commuting to and from school”.
2.- Please, change “on foot and bike” For “on foot or bike”
3.- Please change this sentence “However, the analyzes do not change because no participant reported go cycling commuter to school” for “It has to be noted that no student reported commuting by bike in this study”.
4.- Line 140. Please, change the order of these two references: Castro-Piñero et al., 2009; Artero et al., 2011

5.- Line 164. Add “groups” in this sentence “between active commuter, mixed commuter, and passive commuter groups”.

Results

1.- Line 194. Please, add “p” in italics.

Discussion
1.- Line 203-204. Add “groups”. “However, the results did not show the mediating effect of body fat between average slope and cardiorespiratory fitness and strength lower limbs in the active commuter group”
2.- Line 205-206. Authors said, “In line with our results, many researches have shown a positive relationship between AC to and from school in children and adolescents (Larouche et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2016), …”.
a) The name of a variable is missing from this sentence. For example, “…a positive relationship between ACS and …”? physical fitness?
3.- Line 203-204. Add “groups”. “association between average slope and strength lower limbs and cardiorespiratory fitness in active commuter group”.
4.- Please, change the order of these three references (Lubans et al., 2011; Andersen et al., 2011; Carson et al., 2016).
5.- Please, add a reference to support this claim “Therefore, previous researchers have found the AC to and from school as a way to increase the level of weekly physical activity which in turn is associated with physical fitness in adolescents”
6.- Line 218. What does mean “although these differences were minimal”? Was there or was there not a significant difference?
7.- Authors said “Researchers should take into account these findings during the AC to and from school because it was showed a positive relationship between average slope to lead to lead the changes in their strength lower”
a) Please, remove “to lead” because it appears twice.
8.- 257-265. Remove these sentences. They appear twice in the discussion.
9.- Please, change “The main strengths of the research are…” for “The main strength of this research is…”
10.- Line 290. Add “groups” in this sentence “active commuter group”.
11. Please put "cardiorespiratory" instead of "cardiorrespiratory" throughout the manuscript.

Conclusions

1.- Please remove this sentence “These results are promising because there are not studies to date that have examined the relationships of the study variables using and objective measurement of active commuting such as the Google Earth software” and add the main implications of these 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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AVERAGE SLOPE IN THE ACTIVE COMMUTING TO AND FROM SCHOOL AND FITNESS IN ADOLESCENTS: THE MEDIATOR ROLE OF FATNESS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I want to thank you again for the opportunity to review the Manuscript ID: Relationship between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school and fitness in adolescents: the mediator role of fatness (#41013). This manuscript is an excellent contribution to the literature on the relationship between the average slope in the active
commuting to and from school and fitness in adolescents.

My personal recommendation is to accept the manuscript.

I'm just pointing out some typos.

1.- Please, put in the abstract and method section the same number of trips.
Abstract: mixed commuter (number of weekly trips was ≤ 4, and the time spent on the trip was < 15 minutes)
Method: mixed commuter (number of weekly trips was < 5, and the time spent on the trip was < 15 minutes)
2.- Please, unify AC and ACS throughout the manuscript.

3.- Please, put these references in the right order.

(Noonan et al., 2017; Muntaner-Mas et al., 2018)

(Villa-González et al., 2015; Muntaner-Mas et al., 2018)

4. Please check the final references. There are some journals where the full name does not appear.
Experimental design: No comments in this section.
Validity of the findings: This manuscript is an excellent contribution to the literature on the relationship between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school and fitness in adolescents.
Additional comments: I want to thank you again for the opportunity to review the Manuscript ID: Relationship between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school and fitness in adolescents: the mediator role of fatness (#41013). This manuscript is an excellent contribution to the literature on the relationship between the average slope in the active commuting to and from school and fitness in adolescents.

My personal recommendation is to accept the manuscript.

I'm just pointing out some typos.

1.- Please, put in the abstract and method section the same number of trips.
Abstract: mixed commuter (number of weekly trips was ≤ 4, and the time spent on the trip was < 15 minutes)
Method: mixed commuter (number of weekly trips was < 5, and the time spent on the trip was < 15 minutes)
2.- Please, unify AC and ACS throughout the manuscript.

3.- Please, put these references in the right order.

(Noonan et al., 2017; Muntaner-Mas et al., 2018)

(Villa-González et al., 2015; Muntaner-Mas et al., 2018)

4. Please check the final references. There are some journals where the full name does not appear.


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: VALIDATION OF A GENERAL SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING FACTOR USING CLASSICAL TEST THEORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Some phrasings seem not quite right (e.g. l.406: “Because the large different between” should be “Because of the large differences…”). Native speaker corrections could help resolve these small issues.

The article is structured in the typical way and easy to follow. Raw data is supplied and well-labeled. Tables and Figures are good; only Figure 1 in the main manuscript appears to be low-resolution for some reason, which makes it harder to read. Most of the parameter values can not be made out clearly.
Experimental design: Ethical approval was not given by any ethics committee, but should not be relevant in a survey study.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review this exciting manuscript.
It is obvious from the submitted documents that the authors took great care in providing a thorough and in-depth investigation of the issue at hand.

•	Throughout the manuscript, (non-greek) statistical indicators are sometimes italicized, sometimes they aren’t. This should be done consistently.
•	l.119 – Here the authors cite “Li, 2008ab”, but only one citation by Li (2008) is included in the manuscript. Thus, no subsetting with letters is necessary.
•	l.216f – Shouldn’t this be “neither agree nor disagree”?
•	l.243 – The authors write that they conducted comparisons with the saturated model. However, this is probably not correct, from my understanding. With some fit indices the proposed model is compared to the null (or independence) model but this is the exact opposite of the saturated model. Also, the robust χ² value is utilized not only in these comparative fit indices but in all calculations that follow.
•	l.251 – “This” instead of “These”
•	l.266 – Add “robust” before “maximum likelihood”, also Satorra & Bentler (2001) should be cited if their procedure is used.
•	l.281f – It is unclear to me why the authors report both α and ω, especially after describing the flaws of α for an entire page, but this is not wrong per se.
•	l.307f – ω is not printed correctly
•	l.308f – The authors describe ω as an estimate of item variance “that belongs to a reliable variance for the general latent factor and also for specific subscale(s)”. In my understanding of the term, “reliable variance” always belongs to a construct being measured (as opposed to the error variance). Thus, the “reliable” seems redundant here when one writes that the variance belongs to a factor.
•	l.325 – I am not convinced that scores should be calculated for all estimated models, since some of them evinced relatively bad fit.
•	l.349f – The authors should use a modern criterion for the EFA (such as Horn’s Parallel Analysis) instead of the Kaiser-Guttman criterion. Also, testing all of the scales individually “only” provides additional support for the already existing scales (which is always a good thing, but doesn’t really help their present aim).
•	l.353 – PCA is not EFA in strict terms (see e.g., https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/123063/is-there-any-good-reason-to-use-pca-instead-of-efa-also-can-pca-be-a-substitut)
•	l.364f – Similarly, they test CFAs for all individual scales. This is again not necessary, IMO, and it takes up a lot of space.
•	l.387f – Although it has been very widely applied, the PANAS may not be such a good measure (as the authors themselves note in the Introduction). The PANAS models evince bad fit (Figures S3 and S4), and the full models probably suffered as a result. This should be discussed. Alternative conceptualization of PA and NA could be explored.
•	l.398f – RMSEA is known to be inflated with low df models: Kenny, Kaniskan, and McCoach (2014)
•	l.403f – In the second run of EFA, again Parallel Analysis would be preferred.
•	l.417f – It is not clear to me why the authors present models with and without inverted indicators, as model fit is not affected by this and parameter estimates change in perfectly predictable ways (e.g., a factor loading of .70 becomes -.70, etc.). It would save a lot of space to do just one, preferably the models with inverted items. This applies to Figures S5 and S6, S8 and S9, and the bifactor models.
•	l.612f – I don’t fully understand the purpose of extracting all the factor scores, calculating their descriptive statistics and comparing them in correlational analyses. Naturally, all models except the bifactor one will be highly correlated with the traditional scale score. Simlarly, all the descriptive statistics in Table 2 don’t really add to the understanding of the latent constructs.
•	l.667f and Conclusion – The authors argue that their findings clearly support the notion of a general well-being factor in the sense of the biopsychosocial model. With regard to some aspects of their results, this may be correct. However, the bifactor (and the second order model) still did not reach acceptable model fit (see e.g., Schmermelleh-Engel, Moosbrugger, & Müller, 2003).
They correctly identify the PANAS as the source for this, but please elaborate further, why this is and how could this be remedied? IMO, this paper is a first step but it is limited because of its reliance on the PANAS, which doesn’t seem to be a fully appropriate measure.
•	l.699f makes it sound like SWLS and HILS are as much to blame as PANAS. To me it is pretty obvious where the faults in the model lie (see unifactorial analyses of PA and NA).


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: VALIDATION OF A GENERAL SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING FACTOR USING CLASSICAL TEST THEORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Some minor grammatical errors.
Previous literature shoudl be revised and new studies introduced (see review)
Experimental design: New analysis could imporve the paper (see review)
Participant section needs to be improved
Validity of the findings: DIscussion section could be improved by comparing results with the previous studies suggested.
Additional comments: The work entitled “Validation of a general subjective well-being factor using classical test theory" is of great interest. The research is very stimulating; it contains new scientific knowledge and provides comprehensive information for further development of this productive line of research. However, I have some comments to make that should be addressed before I recommend this manuscript for publication
Authors should check for some minor grammatical errors. For instance, this sentence “understood as high levels subjective well-being” should be revised.
There are some paragraphs in the introduction that I do not know if I first, understand and second, agree with them.
“We argue, however, that harmony in life is distinct to life satisfaction and propose instead a biopsychosocial perspective on subjective well-being: affect (bio), life satisfaction (psychological), and harmony in life (social)… Naturally, the evaluation of positive and negative affect is the biological part of subjective well-being, since emotions are derived from our temperament, a part of personality with a strong genetic factor and relatively stable over the life span”

According to this, positive and negative affect are indicators of biological characteristics. Is the PANAS, then, a measure of biological aspects instead of psychological characteristics?
Authors explain the latent structure of the positive and negative affect and introduce different previous studies regarding this. From my point of view, most of the studies they mention are somehow outdated. There is only one study about the structure of positive and negative affect after 2010 (Thompson, 2017). I suggest authors considering recent relevant studies (Galinha, Pereira et al., 2013; Merz, Malcarne et al., 2013; Ortuño-Sierra, Santaren et al., 2015; Ortuño-Sierra, Bañuelos, et al., 2019; Sanmartín, Vicent et al., 2018).
WIth regards to the method, the participants section should include more relevant information. For instance, authors talk about a final sample, how was the initial sample then? Also, what was the age distribution, or socioeconomic level, or study level of the participants?
I would also suggest, reviewing some recent studies for the factor structure of the SWLS, as well as it relationship with the positive and negative affect (Glaesmer, Grande, Braehler, & Roth, 2011; Jovanovic, 2016; Moksnes, Løhre, Byrne, & Haugan, 2014; Ortuño-Sierra, Aritio, Chocarro, Navaridas, Fonseca-Pedrero, 2017).
The authors mentioned that they computed EFA and CFA. In order to do so, a cross validation sample procedure is recommended. Was this performed in the study?. Otherwise, I would recommend doing so, although authors should considering the small sample size. If authors decide not to apply this, it should be mentioned in the limitation section.
Also, the measurence invariance (MI)  of the resulting model(/models should be considering as an added analysis that could provide further value to the manuscript.
	Finally, authors should consider revising the writing when talking about the study of internal consistency or convergent validity in some parts of the paper. First of all,
validity is not a property of the test but inferences of the scores, and also, there are sources or validity evidences, as it is reflected in the APA standards. Attending to this approach it would be more appropriate to talk about evidences of internal structure or evidences of relation with other variables or external variables. In addition, the reliability is not a characteristic of the test. It is more correct to talk about reliability of the scores or estimation of the reliability of the scores (Prieto & Delgado, 2010).


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: VALIDATION OF A GENERAL SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING FACTOR USING CLASSICAL TEST THEORY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors did a great job on the revision and were very meticulous in the changes they implemented.
Personally, I might have made some different decisions here or there, but overall the manuscript is now well-written and up to a high methodological standard. I have no reservations with recommending it for publication.

Best regards,
Bjarne Schmalbach


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: VALIDATION OF A GENERAL SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING FACTOR USING CLASSICAL TEST THEORY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have addressed all my suggestions. I have no further comments.
Experimental design: The experimental design is now appropriate
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are now well founded and supported by the results
Additional comments: 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: BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH CELL PHONES AND SHOES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.1	The manuscript suffers from occasional typos. Please check throughout manuscript carefully.

1.2 The authors should pay attention on sections of the text that may be more suited in other sections of the manuscript.

1.3 I feel that because a lot of the text currently in the results section should in fact be in the Intro or Materials sections, the actual results/data presented in this study is rather light and not very comprehensive. With more than 2000 samples, I would expect the authors to conduct a more thorough investigation of the phones and shoes microbiomes. For example, there is no mentioning of alpha-diversity or the taxonomic composition of the communities. Also, additional enrichment analyses (such as ANCOM and/or DeSeq2) may be used to complement Figure 3.

1.4 I humbly would also recommend a greater focus in the introduction section on the importance of undertaking the work described (e.g. the identification of the microbial dark matter and what that means for understanding phone and shoe microbiomes) from an ecological standpoint.

1.5 Please carefully review the referencing format of PeerJ. It appears that the journal names for some references do not conform to the PeerJ referencing format.

1.6 Can authors provide ethical approval statement?
Experimental design: 2.1 The experimental design, including steps for read sequence quality control and filtering, is generally well thought-out and clear.

2.2 Various sections of the text now in the Results section are perhaps more suitable in the Materials and Methods section.

2.3 The authors indicate that 2,486 samples were included for sequencing. However, the SRA link provided on the manuscript only contains 2,234 files. Please clarify.
Validity of the findings: 3.1 I feel that there is a general lack of statistical evidence to back the statements claimed by the authors. For example, the reason for not performing the ANOSIM analysis between the different sample group (when combining other studies in the meta-analysis) was not explained.

3.2 Results tend to agree their previous works but does not have immense novelty. The MDM results presented is promising but authors will need to elaborate both the analysis and discussion/significance of this tremendously.
Additional comments: Coil and colleagues describe a country-wide microbiome characterization of mobile phone and shoe surfaces, which appears to be a follow-up study of their previous works. The described investigation is generally interesting, but the study will benefit from a more comprehensive characterization of the phone/shoe microbiomes. There are instances where follow-up discussion is lacking, and because some text do not belong to the right sections, the manuscript feels disorganized and lacking focus. Also, references are lacking to support some of their claims. Overall, this manuscript definitely requires major revision, both in a sense that additional analyses and a re-structuring of the manuscript, before it can be accepted for publication. Specifically:

Line 99-100: please elaborate on “act in some ways.” In what ways?

Line 104-123: large chunks of this section should be in Materials and Methods. I am more interested here greater details about previous works conducted on indoor surfaces (especially phones and shoes). The authors do describe works conducted on phones and shoes, but should describe in more detail. There is also little information about the dark matter in which the authors have provided nice results later in the manuscript. Describing these points greater depth will also help with the comment directly below.

Line 123: from the introduction, the work seems to simply reflect on a repeat of the previous works conducted by the group, with a larger number of samples. Can the authors explicitly state what is currently lacking in the scientific field, and how the works presented help fill that knowledge gap (in addition to the statement that this work entails a larger sample size)?

Line 194: The first three paragraphs of the results section arguably should be in the Methods section. As a matter of fact, this first section of results/discussion would benefit from a general overview of the taxonomic composition and the microbial (alpha) diversity of the different surfaces.

Line 224: Please provide the ANOSIM R value to describe the strength of the significant clustering between the phone and shoe microbial communities.

Line 227: The authors have used the word "presumably." What is this presumption based on? I believe that this is based on previous publications. If that is the case, please cite relevant references.

Line 227-8: Please either perform the ANOSIM analysis here, or provide a valid reason for why this was not performed.

Line 237: fix sentence “Extracting VIMs not does not…”

Line 246-247: can the authors provide a description of the biogeography of BE microbiomes in general, and how their results here agree or disagree with previous publications? Also, the authors state that further works would reveal more information about biogeography, but why was this not performed and results included in the present manuscript? Also, please elaborate what kind of analysis is required in the future for the authors to understand “the influence of geographic location on microbial communities.” This phrase is very vague.

Line 247: missing punctuation at end of sentence.

Line 268/269/278: please provide references to support the conjectures.

Line 282-287: Not sure how this paragraph is related to the title of this section. This paragraph is perhaps better suited for either the intro or the methods section where sampling is described.

Line 294-300: the fact that the authors used “we focused” on these phyla suggests that there are in fact more phyla from the MDM detected, and the authors chose to analyze these ones further. If this is the case, explicitly explain why these were chosen. If this is the entire list of MDM phyla, rephrase this sentence to make less confusing.

Line 300-302: fix sentence "and the whether they"
Line 303-317: if the authors also performed enrichment analyses as recommended (ANCOM/DeSeq2), there would be a more statistical method in backing up claims suggesting that certain phyla are skewed towards phone/shoe samples.

Line 308: I presume these represent the prevalence of these MDMs in the samples. How abundant are these MDMs in each sample? Are these MDMs considered rare? If that is the case, are they rare throughout, or do they represent more abundant members is a particular subset of samples? Please provide more in-depth analyses of these MDMs.

Line 314: can the authors describe these prevalent phyla in detail, and how their ecological niche reflect on the results presented on phones/shoes?

Line 319: please provide reference to back up statement.

Line 318-320: what is the significance of this concluding sentence? Please elaborate and discuss.

Line 324-331: the conclusion right now simply regurgitates the findings presented in results section. What are the general significance and key of these results? What can we as readers learn from the results and its significance?

Line 340: please indicate metadata also available in the link (either here or in Materials and Methods section).

Table 1: please elaborate on “rough approximation.” Either provide more information here or on Materials and Methods section.

Table 1: will the authors be able to provide a supplementary table providing metadata on individual samples?


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

Input:
Title: BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH CELL PHONES AND SHOES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	The following statement starting on line 113 “The second was to engage people in thinking about cell phones as being a proxy for sampling the microbes found on a person and their shoes as being a proxy for sampling the microbes found in a person’s environment” although true is a bit misleading in the context of this study. The authors did not collect skin or oral samples from the participants or environmental samples from the study sites, which prevented the authors from making objective connections from cell phones to owners and shoes to environment. The previous work by Lax et al. 2015, did collect samples from the owners, cell phones, floors, and environment, which permitted Lax et al., to determine if the cell phone was a proxy for the owner and the shoe a proxy for the environment.
2.	The first three paragraphs of the Results/ Discussion section contain a mix of methods and results and discussion. These should be revised so that the appropriate content is found in the respective section.
3.	In general, the results and discussion section is lacking in references to previous research to support many statements made. Lines 223, 244, 268, 273, and 278 are just a few examples. The authors may want to consider taking some time to review the literature to support arguments being made and to bolster the content of the results and discussion.
4.	The following statement “the majority of people on the planet now possess a cell phone” found on line 96 needs a reference.
Experimental design: 1.	It was stated several times throughout the manuscript that ~3500 samples were initially collected. Although this is a laudable accomplishment, which should be noted, I fear that it could be misleading of the actual sample size of analyzed samples (N = ~2000 - 2500). The authors report that sequencing was performed on 2486 samples. However, in Table 1 the sum of samples collected at each site is only 2086. Based on the information in the manuscript there is no explanation of why there is a 400 sample difference between the table and the text.
2.	The authors state that “some samples were lost in transit and a further 864 samples were excluded from sequencing due to an irretrievable loss of the sample ID data.” If this information is to be shared, it should be stated how many were lost in transit and why such a large number of samples lost their sample ID data. If the authors collected 3500 samples and excluded 864 from missing sample ID data (3500 – 864 = 2636) and had a sample size of 2486. Does that mean that 150 samples were “lost in transit” (2636 – 2486 = 150)?  If that is the case, and the authors again choose to share this information, it should be explained how so many samples were lost in transit.
Validity of the findings: 1.	The authors reference visual associations and clustering within PCoA plots, and sometimes explicitly state that statistics were not run to support these visual trends (line 227). The authors have shown proficiency at running ANOSIM. All visual associations and trends should be supported by statistics.
2.	The way that the centroids were determined for cell phones and shoes and how the line separating the centroids was made seems unconventional. Is this a validated method? Are there previous studies that have used this same method? If so, these studies should be referenced. If not, it would be more conventional to create a biplot.
3.	The statement starting on line 225 is contradictory to arguments previously made in the manuscript. “Visual examination suggests that floor samples (light blue) group with shoes (as expected), while spacecraft (yellow) group with phones, presumably because both of these communities have major contribution from human associated taxa.” The authors previously argued that shoe samples carry taxa representative of the “environment” not human associated taxa.
4.	Line 241 includes the following statement “The sport played at the venue where the sample was collected is less predictive…” It is not clear how this analysis was done because only 9 of the 38 venues listed in Table 1 can explicitly be associated to a single sport. It should be clearly outlined in the methods section how this analysis was done, and which venues were included.
Additional comments: 1.	The authors should consider revising the following statement starting on line 223 “this is supported by ANOSIM statistical analysis which showed a significance of 0.001 for this separation of shoes and phones.” to “this is supported by statistical analysis (ANOSIM; p = 0.001).”
2.	There is a typo on line 237 “Extracting VIMs not does not include the optimization…”
3.	There is a typo on line 288 “In relation to this, we examined how many (if any) of these microbes present in such…” "...present in such..." should be "...present on such..."
4.	In Table 1 the authors may consider using the term “Juvenile” or something similar instead of “Kid.”
5.	Figure 1 figure legend should define what “control”, “index”, and “other” sample types are.
6.	In Figure 3 the dots should be colored by sample type rather than phyla.


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

Input:
Title: BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH CELL PHONES AND SHOES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper proposes using cell phones and shoes as sampling devices for potential forensic use and epidemiology to probe the environmental and human microbiota. The authors use a very large-scale study to characterize these communities and conclude that shoe associated microbial community carries phyla typically found in environmental samples while the cell phones contain taxa abundant in the human microbiota. They also dive into microbial dark matter analysis and showed that it’s mainly detected in the microbial community associated with shoes.
1. The article is well written
2. Introduction and context are clear and relevant. A few minor comments about the introduction:
- line 96: “In addition to the millions of microbes that we carry around each day, the majority of people on the planet now possess a cell phone” this sentence seems incomplete.
- line 98: The main message of the paper cited from Meadow, Altrichter & Green, 2014 being that cell phone microbiota is representative of your index skin microbiome (“82% of the OTUs were shared between a person’s index and phone when considering the dominant taxa”). It would be worth emphasizing this previous finding in the introduction.
- line 120: In the method, you indicate that you also collected the date of sampling
-line 122: The introduction indicates that you collected ~3,500 samples, but you could only use ~2,500: it would be great to indicate this with the statement “To our knowledge, this represents the largest collection of bacterial community sequencing data associated with cell phones or shoes.”
In the discussion section, some references are missing:
- line 268 -> 278: several claims are made about taxa found and the community they’re found in. However, without any references.
- There are a lot of references cited for using Random Forest to extract features of importance: it’s unclear if the method used in the paper line 179->181. Did you use a specific package? Can you reference it?
- line 91: “This understanding has implications for fields ranging from medicine to forensics to architecture”. Please elaborate or cite a reference.
3. Structure is clear, but the results and discussion sections are not separated which is required in the instructions for the author section. This does not really pose any problem with the overall understanding of the paper of this paper, but I let the editor decide if it’s appropriate to keep it that way for peerJ.
4. Major comments:
- Figure 1 and 2: Were the data normalized?
- Figure 4 is also referenced as suppl 1.
- Table one is very long and needs to be either summarized or moved to supplemental information.
- The Labelling of the y-axis and the % represented in Figure 4 is unclear. Is it Predictive accuracy?
5. Yes, all data are available.
Experimental design: 1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Some major comments here:
- The DADA2 workflow is well described and reproducible (ideally the authors would make the code available, but they did make the intermediate files available). However, there is not enough information available about the random forest approach used: Line 179->181.  The authors need to indicate the package they used for their example and the relevant literature specific to this package; not a general citation about Random Forest.
- line 197: Provide the mean of reads/datasets with standard deviation rather than the total number of reads.
- line 201: Can you indicate the number of samples per datasets (439 total)? And as indicated above, the mean of the number of read/dataset with standard deviation.
- line 217: Can you provide the number of ASVs at each of the filtering steps (and again the mean for each dataset rather than the total of reads)?
- line 222: Did you normalized your data? Same question line 23, did you normalize the ASV count?

Minor comments here (which could be avoided if you were to provide the used code):
-	Line 151: What Q2 score (value) did you use? If the code is not available, you need to indicate which threshold you used. I’m assuming this is the two expected error (indicated below?) maxEE in DADA2  “filterAndTrim” function.
-	Line 153: This statement is confusing with the Q2 score indicate above.
-	Line 156-157: “Error models were calculated using one million reads for the three published data sets” as a minimum number of total bases to use for error rate learning in DADA2?
-	Line 161: 7 table sequences or 4 (from the four datasets)?
-	Line 162: Using the function tip_glom: id you use h=0.2 (default)?
-	Line 237 remove the "not"
Validity of the findings: The impact of this study is well assessed, and the sample size definitively makes the rational believable. However, I would like to draw the attention of the author on several analyses that need to be improved for this paper to be published.
- line 165: You decided to remove the un-identified phyla from your analysis. But, the analysis displayed figure 1 is based on microbial structure distances, regardless of the phylogenetic assignment of the ASV. Can you draw the same conclusion if you consider all the ASVs, i.e. are the two communities are distinct?
- line 217: Do you observe any difference between the sequencing depth of the four different datasets? Or in the number of ASVs detected? While the sampling method is similar, the matrix from which it is sampled (shoes with soil particles vs cell phones) it drastically different and could result in very different DNA yield. In the same vein, it would also be great to comment on beta diversity between the matrix.
- line 228: You visually comment to which centroid the dataset considered is the closest to. Could you test this (by looking into distance to each considered centroid)?
- line 244: You suggest “local biogeography effects in patterning the microbial community”. The claim is unclear to me: beyond the random forest analysis, is the community actually predictive of the sampling location? This would need to be tested and discuss.
- line 256-262: Do you have any statistics supporting these associations?  While I agree that some of the ASVs seem to be on one side or the other of the line separating the two centroids, there are quite a few tools to confirm that taxa are more abundant in one sample type than the other (Deseq, MetaGenomSeq) (Love et al., 2014) (Paulson et al., 2013), or by comparing distance to the centroid in each plot.
REFERENCES:
Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550–21. PMCID: PMC4302049
Paulson JN, Stine OC, Bravo HC, Pop M. Differential abundance analysis for microbial marker-gene surveys. Nat. Methods. BioMed Central; 2013 Sep 29;10(12):1200–2.
Additional comments: The conclusions are well stated, but the authors need to address a few critical points as indicated above (especially regarding batch effects and confounding factors) to support the claims of this paper.


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

Input:
Title: BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH CELL PHONES AND SHOES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised version now has sufficient and appropriate referencing and the background on the need to look at the microbial dark matter is described in the introduction.
Experimental design: The methods section has now been elaborated as recommended.
Validity of the findings: Statistical tests and results have now been provided throughout the manuscript.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed the previous comments, and have substantially improved the manuscript. I approve this manuscript for publication.


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

Input:
Title: BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH CELL PHONES AND SHOES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors addressed my concerns in this section.
Minor comment : Line 207 “The figure was generated “: Consider adding the final figure number.
Experimental design: The authors addressed my concerns in this section.

Minor comment:
Initial Comment: The DADA2 workflow is well described and reproducible (ideally the authors would make the code available, but they did make the intermediate files available). However, there is not enough information available about the random forest approach used: Line 179->181. The authors need to indicate the package they used for their example and the relevant literature specific to this package; not a general citation about Random Forest.

First Rebuttal answer: “Language has been added to the text to make this more clear. The code is now all present in the linked repository, it may have been missing in the original submission.”

New comment: The level of details in the method section is now suitable for publication, but I still can’t find the code repository link in the method section (maybe you’ve submitted it somewhere else online and it’s not in the PDF itself?)
Validity of the findings: The authors addressed my concerns in this section.
Additional comments: Great job revising the manuscript!


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTIVENESS OF TOPICAL ANTIBIOTICS IN TREATING CORALS AFFECTED BY STONY CORAL TISSUE LOSS DISEASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I’m surprised to see a lack of references to studies that have used antibiotics on corals before which I’m sure gave these authors the ideas and concepts of this study in the first place
Sweet, M. J., Croquer, A., & Bythell, J. C. (2014). Experimental antibiotic treatment identifies potential pathogens of white band disease in the endangered Caribbean coral Acropora cervicornis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281(1788).
Sweet, M., and John C. Bythell. White Syndrome in Acropora muricata: Non-specific bacterial infection and ciliate histophagy. Molecular Ecology 24.4 (2015):
Experimental design: Can the authors allude to the permits given for such experimental work in situ in the text – its noted this is written at the bottom but would be good within text.
Were the diseased colonies tagged and monitored beforehand to ensure they were progressing?
Validity of the findings: L106 present significant results in text
Photos of each colony are mentioned – this would be valuable information to provide and put into a composite figure showing the various success rates with scales
Additional comments: See above


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTIVENESS OF TOPICAL ANTIBIOTICS IN TREATING CORALS AFFECTED BY STONY CORAL TISSUE LOSS DISEASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: Effectiveness of topical antibiotics in treating corals affected by Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease by Karen L Neely Corresp., 1 , Kevin A Macaulay 1 , Emily K Hower 1 , Michelle A Dobler PEERJ-44795

Overview: Authors treated a series of colonies of multiple species of corals with 4 formulations of a paste ladened or not with amoxicillin and gauged efficacy of this treatment to stop progression of tissue loss in corals affected with SCTLD.  They found ca. 29-86% of corals with amoxicillin-laden paste to have halted lesion progression whereas placebo paste success ranged from 4-7%.  There was a ca.50-60% recurrence rate a month after treatment.  Authors are to be commended for trying to find a solution to the pressing problem of SCTLD in FL, but it is unclear whether perceived benefits outweigh broader risks.  Several points to consider:  1) No convincing link has been made between bacterial infections and SCTLD at the cellular level.  Indeed, in the study cited (Aeby et al. 2019), all they showed was transmission, but many things can look transmissible (e.g. autotomy in sea stars (Motokawa 2011)) but are not necessarily caused by infectious agents.  No efforts were made in that study to look at the corals on microscopy to see if bacteria were truly the cause of experimental tissue loss. 2) Treating corals with antibiotics seems a bit risky and somewhat irresponsible given that antibiotics can affect other organisms on the reef.  Moreover, with the pervasive problems with antibiotic resistance, spreading more antibiotics in the environment, particularly to treat something that does not deal with the root of the problem, could aggravate things in the longer term.  Why did the authors not consider alternatives such as a paste laden with bleach (Beurmann et al 2017) which would be just as efficacious in killing all manner of microbiota but not engender resistance? 3) Treatments such as these also introduce a moral hazard.  Notwithstanding the practicality of treating 10s of km^2 using this technique and dumping huge amounts of antibiotics in the environment in the process, such solutions allow decisions makers to detract from more fundamental changes in coastal management that need to happen to save Florida's Coral reefs.  The Florida reef tract suffered its first tectonic change in coral cover with the loss of Acropora in the 1980s (Aronson & Precht 2001), and now we are seeing a second wave of collapse with remnant species.  It is notable that this ongoing SCTLD started in 2014 near the Miami Channel that was being dredged releasing a huge amount of sediments (Miller et al. 2016; Barnes et al. 2015) during a time of unusually high temperatures which themselves were stressful to corals (Precht et al., 2016).  Notably, to expedite the dredging process, the State of Florida imposed strict limits on resource agencies' ability to evaluate or mitigate the sediment damage of dredging activities in order to move things along (Miller et al. 2016).  It is marshalling the political will to curb practices such as these that will have the most beneficial long term value to save Florida's corals.     Some more specifics:

Lines 87-88: How did those particular colonies fare?  Was the treatment just as efficacious as what you found after the one month period?

Methods: Can you provide an exact formulation for the paste? or is it proprietary?

line 59: What defines small?

Lines 111-113 suggests that the amoxicillin is not preventing recurrence of disease.  Moreover, there is the implicit assumption here that bacteria are the problem (you are treating with antibiotics and lesions stop).  But it could just be that bacteria are aggravating an underlying problem, and it seems that efforts should be going to sorting what exactly is causing SCTLD in the first place.

Lines 124-125: Perhaps useful in aquaria but do you really think this tool is a viable management option given the need to reapply multiple times?

Lines 126-128: Disagree.  Clearly, your method does not stop new lesions from forming, so applying to high value corals does not eliminate their exposure to cause of SCTLD.  For those "rare or high value corals", the best bet will be to remove them from habitat and hold them in aquaria.

References
Aeby, Greta S., Blake Ushijima, Justin E. Campbell, Scott Jones, Gareth J. Williams, Julie L. Meyer, Claudia Häse, and Valerie J. Paul. 2019. 'Pathogenesis of a Tissue Loss Disease Affecting Multiple Species of Corals Along the Florida Reef Tract', Frontiers in Marine Science, 6.
Aronson, R. B., and W. F. Precht. 2001. 'White-band disease and the changing face of Caribbean coral reefs', Hydrobiologia, 460: 25-38.
Barnes, B.B., C Hu, C Kovach, and R.N. Silverstein. 2015. 'Sediment plumes induced by the Port of Miami dredging: Analysis and interpretation using Landsat and MODIS data', Remote Sensing of Environment, 170: 328–39.
Beurmann, S., C. M. Runyon, P. Videau, S. M. Callahan, and G. S. Aeby. 2017. 'Assessment of disease lesion removal as a method to control chronic Montipora white syndrome', Dis Aquat Organ, 123: 173-79.
Miller, M.W., J Karazsia, C.E. Groves, S Griffin, T Moore, P Wilber, and K Gregg. 2016. 'Detecting sedimentation impacts to coral reefs resulting from dredging the Port of Miami, Florida USA', PeerJ, 4: e2711.
Motokawa, T. 2011. 'Mechanical mutability in connective tissue of starfish body wall', Biological Bulletin, 221: 280–89.
Precht, W.F., B.E. Gintert, M.L Robbart, R Fura, and R van Woesik. 2016. 'Unprecedented Disease-Related Coral Mortality in Southeastern Florida', Scientific Reports, 6: 31374.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTIVENESS OF TOPICAL ANTIBIOTICS IN TREATING CORALS AFFECTED BY STONY CORAL TISSUE LOSS DISEASE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an important contribution to the field that presents the most recent advances in treatment to a deadly bacterial-induced disease in foundational scleractinians. I recommend however, that the authors refine and expand a bit the introduction and
experimental design with the treatment methodologies used for future successful replication. The manuscript is well written, but the introduction (and references) could be expanded a bit, specially by comparing with the other deadly disease (WPD) that has very similar signs to SCTLD, and has been around for decades. Many authors believe this new one is just another variation of the original WPD, so emphasizing the main differences would be a good start.

Overall structure, figures tables are fine. There are however, no clear stated questions and hypotheses, they are obvious, but maybe, to follow the manuscripts' professional structure, these should be included at the end of the introduction.
Experimental design: Most results are presented in the context of success or failure of treatments with regards to lesions within colonies of different coral species. However, up to the point of reading the results, the reader has no idea how many colonies/lesions in how many different species were used, or if the 5 step design was applied consistently to the seven different species used (balanced design).

From Fig.1 it is obvious that this is not the case. It would then be advisable that authors  expand and clarify the experimental design and how the analysis was done. Number of lesions treated by colonies/species,  variable (s) used (lesions/colony/or species), conditions for the Z-tests (proportions) used, etc. This not clearly stated in the methods. Maybe a table or diagram with the experimental design including species/colonies/ lesions and the treatments used could clarify this.
Validity of the findings: Discussion should present more detail with regards to what were the main differences across the different species, and treatments. Which species showed higher effectiveness and maybe, some explanation/speculation of why. Is there any phylogenetic relationship amongst those that responded better, or failed?  Any considerations about how the antibiotic could affect the natural microbiome of the different species? Any suggestions to improve the efficiency of the methods in the field? These are important topics that could be included in the discussion and conclusions.
Additional comments: I would like to congratulate and thank the authors for taking on this important aspect of the disease problem impacting coral reefs Worldwide. This is an important contribution to the field that will be widely used and cited in the near future. However, I think that with a little more of work (see general and specific comments), it would be greatly improved . I recommend that the authors refine and expand a bit the introduction, the experimental design and the field methods, and complement the discussion and conclusions as indicated in the general and specific comments.
General and specific comments:

Abstract

Line 23:  …….overall effectiveness…
Lines 24-25:  but, how many of the total susceptible spp? ….and effectiveness was not the same for all species, right?? Clarify in tis sentence.
Line 25:  as the conclusion, emphasize that this is by far the most effective method to treat SCTLD diseased colonies today.

Introduction:

Lines 51-57: Please clarify if colonies selected belong to just one species, the most susceptible species or species with varying susceptibility. How many colonies of each of the different species were selected?  This has bearings on the following experimental design. If the species was not considered as a factor, please explain why. It would be a confounding factor in the results and interpretation.

Lines 66-72: What is the difference between Base B and the New Base??
Line 78: ……..0.5 cm covered infected live tissue.

Any considerations about how the antibiotic could affect the natural microbiome of the different species? Could it eliminate beneficial bacteria to the host?

Materials and Methods:

Please include a figure/map with the location of the experimental area

Results

Most results are presented in the context of success or failure of treatments with regards to lesions within colonies of different coral species. However, up to this point, the reader has no idea how many colonies/lesions in how many different species were used, or if the 5 step design was applied consistently to the seven different species used (balanced design).

From Fig.1 it is obvious that this is not the case. It would then be advisable that authors  expand and clarify the experimental design and how the analysis was done. Number of lesions treated by colonies/species,  variable (s) used (lesions/colony/or species), conditions for the Z-tests (proportions) used, etc. This not clearly stated in the methods. Maybe a table or diagram with the experimental design including species/colonies/ lesions and the treatments used could clarify this.

Results for seven different species are presented in figure 1, but two of these spp. are never mentioned in the results and discussion?

Line 101 -103: This summary sentence must be more specific: … Overall, Base 2B + amoxicillin effectiveness was 86% (54/63) for all colonies treated (all species), with P. strigosa showing the highest % of failures.

An effectiveness of 73% for example, means that 11 colonies showed arresting disease signs from a total of 15 colonies treated (base + amoxicillin) right?  Those 15 do not include controls and placebos, right? Maybe adding “antibiotic treated”… before …..colonies….. in the results would clarify this.  Results and discussion are a bit confusing because authors mix results for the total number of colonies (or lesions), and those for individual species (i.e. Lines 99-103; 106-108; 111-113; etc.).
.
Discussion:

Line 120: …. The addition of……..     This should be in the results.

 Discussion should present more detail with regards to what were the main differences across the different species, and treatments. Which species showed higher effectiveness and maybe, some explanation/speculation of why. Is there any phylogenetic relationship amongst those that responded better, or failed?  Any considerations about how the antibiotic could affect the natural microbiome of the different species? Any suggestions to improve the logistics and efficiency of the methods in the field? These are important topics that could be included in the discussion and conclusions that would improve the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTIVENESS OF TOPICAL ANTIBIOTICS IN TREATING CORALS AFFECTED BY STONY CORAL TISSUE LOSS DISEASE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I still think this is a very basic study and not really publishable as a full paper but that in my opinion is the editors choice.

The text would also benefit from some stringent re writing for example L39 and L41 both start with the lead, However and this is only one example among many where sentence structure could be improved.

I also have a major worry about how or why antibiotics were used in such away in the first place, but as permits were given for this experiment again this is not really my place to say this, although I imagine the study will come under attack as to bad practice to trial such 'treatments' in the field.

L98 can you give some examples of the before and after photos highlighting successful and non-successful applications?

In the results where you talk about significant or not differences please put in the test and the value in brackets for example but throughout L139

beginning of discussion you might want to reference this new paper which explores a similar treatment albeit for a different coral disease in a different region https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-57980-1

The discussion (as written) isn't really a discussion, more a report on what is advised for people to utilise this method of treating corals.
Experimental design: see above
Validity of the findings: see above
Additional comments: see above


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTIVENESS OF TOPICAL ANTIBIOTICS IN TREATING CORALS AFFECTED BY STONY CORAL TISSUE LOSS DISEASE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See below
Experimental design: See below
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: Overview: This is a revision of an earlier version.  There is no question that antibiotics and paste alleviate progression of lesions in corals to variable extent.  Moreover, it appears that this method is already being deployed on a larger scale thus resulting in applications of large amounts of antibiotics on coral reef ecosystems absent any evident effort to gauge potential risks that such an approach may have on non-target reef organisms.  Clearly the horse has left the barn. The implication is that SCTLD is caused by bacteria, and a solution is large scale application of antibiotics to coral reef ecosystems absent any sort of risk assessment.  It only remains to give this approach and message scientific imprimatur.  Given that the authors have done a reasonably good job to address most comments, and that they have shown unquestionably that amoxicillin does slow lesion development, I can only offer some additional comments to clarify things and perhaps provide a more balanced perspective.

Line 40: Pls reword "...definitive cause of SCTLD remains unknown".  Until someone can show actual evidence of a pathogen at the cellular level, we can't say this disease is caused by an infectious agent.

Line 84: Pls indicate this is a proprietary ointment.

Lines 89-94: It would be useful here to know about how much material total was used to treat these corals.  Please also indicate the source and manufacturer of the amoxicillin.

Also, the amounts you are using are not trivial.  For instance, assuming 60cc/coral, you are dumping into the environment about 7.5 g of amoxicillin, so for 61 corals, you contributed about 450 g of antibiotics to the reef.  You later go on to state that you treated 2000 corals with this formulation.  That's basically dumping 15 kg of pure amoxicillin on a reef ecosystem.  Even at half that, it would be 7 kg.  Any idea of the potential ramifications of this?  Yes, it degrades rapidly in the environment, but there are concerns about antibiotic resistance (1). There is evidence that amoxicillin can disrupt photosynthesis of algae (2).  There is also the issue that the breakdown products of this compound could be more toxic than the parent (3-4).  Perhaps a more balanced approach would be to acknowledge that this approach does carry some risks (perhaps citing some of the papers aforementioned).  Indeed, it is very surprising that large scale efforts have been carried out in absence of any rational risk assessment as to potential side effects of these activities.

You also state in your rebuttal that you tried bleach and had little success.  This seems really odd, because bleach is a very effective killer of bacteria, again bringing into question exactly what the amoxicillin is actually doing to slow lesions.

Lines 104-09: Again, you are assuming SCTLD is infectious, but the only evidence for this is field signs that can be very misleading (see my previous review).  Please delete any reference to this being infectious as this could mislead readers.

Lines 177-178: What percent of treated corals by colonies developed new lesions?  This would be interesting to present in results, simply as a sentence (e.g. "Follow up surveys revealed X, Y, and Z% of treated CN, OF, ML, etc. had new lesions).

Line 181: THere needs to be a mention here somewhere about how many Kg of amoxicillin you are planning or projecting to apply to reefs in the longer term.  This would add transparency to those pondering potential side effects.

Lines 188-189: "Such actions have been and should continue to be weighed in a risk management scenario that considers unknown factors such as impacts on the treated corals’ microbiomes as well as potential antibiotic resistance."  Precisely.  Although there is lip service to the effect, I get the sense here that no actual risk assessment was made at all.  I could almost understand going ahead with large scale treatments using, say, something biodegradable like bleach but you are here using a bioactive compound that degrades to potential toxic byproducts (see citations above).  It is amazing that this has been allowed to go forward on a large scale, but I guess I see the rationale that "Something needs to be done" in spite of the possibility that the cure could be worse than the disease.

Figure 2. Caption Bottom is confusing.  How can you have a negative number of lesions?  Is this a percent decrease?  Suggest delete Figure 2 and leave Fig 3 which is far more informative and essentially communicates the same thing.  Simplifies presentation.

References:

1) https://www.intechopen.com/books/environmental-health-risk-hazardous-factors-to-living-species/amoxicillin-in-the-aquatic-environment-its-fate-and-environmental-risk
2) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166445X08002075
3) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166445X08002075
4) Fatta-Kassinos, D., Kalavrouziotis, I.K., Koukoulakis, P., Vasquez, M.I., 2011a. The
risks associated with wastewater reuse and xenobiotics in the agroecological
environment. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 3555–3563.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECTIVENESS OF TOPICAL ANTIBIOTICS IN TREATING CORALS AFFECTED BY STONY CORAL TISSUE LOSS DISEASE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an important contribution that provides potential mitigation treatments for the SCTLD  epizootic problem and potentially, for future bacteria-caused diseases in marine invertebrates. I praise the authors for taking on the challenge, working with disease in corals is not easy task.
Authors addressed all previous questions, observations and suggestions by the reviewers and it seems all issues are resolved. I have a few of simple observations on this version, see below.
I recommend publication.
Experimental design: Initial problems in the description of the methods were resolved. Methods are not perfect (they never are), but are robust enough to have confidence in the results.
Validity of the findings: Results and findings are acceptable.
Additional comments: I have a few of simple observations on this version:

Line 31, add Weil et al. 2019 after Alvares-Filip et al. 2019 and to the reference list.
Line 91. a gloved hand I suppose??
Line 109:...... localized vs systemic in relation to the microbiome., but this may not be the case for the coral polyps and the colony. There is good evidence that some of the bacterial diseases have systemic effects (on reproduction and immune responses for example) at the colony level in scleractinian and octocorals (Petes et al. 2003; Weil et al. 2009; Mydlarz manuscripts).
Line 177-78. Did you observe any significant proliferation of new lesions in treated colonies vs. untreated (not touched) healthy controls? Do you think application of the pastes could elicit dispersion of pathogens to other areas of the colony, or to other colonies??

Maybe authors could consider including a short paragraph with the major limitations of the study before the conclusion.


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: WITHIN-PERSON STRUCTURES OF DAILY COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE DIFFER FROM BETWEEN-PERSON STRUCTURES OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I reviewed this paper in March and as I mentioned then, the paper is well-written, the data set is unique, and the statistical analyses are well-chosen and sound. The authors addressed all points of my review. I appreciate their careful work and responsiveness to all the feedback they received. I have no further comments on the manuscript.

I was astonished to read the first decision to reject this paper. When reading the decision and the other reviews, I had the impression that the most important disagreement was about the potential contribution of the paper to the field. I understand that by mere logic, between- and within-person structures should not be the same and I see why this would not be surprising for some readers. However, the implications of this at first glance intuitive finding are far reaching. It implies that as a field, we must change the methods in which we used to study the organization of cognitive abilities. Even in 2019, our typical designs assess almost always between-person structures and thus do not inform us (not even approximately) about individual cognitive performance. Although mere logic or, for example, the work of Peter Molenaar (2004) could have changed the way we study cognitive abilities, they obviously didn’t. In my view, an empirical investigation with such a large and unique data set (101 adults performing nine cognitive tasks on 100 occasions) could be just the empirical evidence we need as a field to no longer be able to ignore this issue. Thus, although the main finding could be considered intuitive, I expect it to have a major impact.

Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2, 201–218.


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: WITHIN-PERSON STRUCTURES OF DAILY COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE DIFFER FROM BETWEEN-PERSON STRUCTURES OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Pass
Experimental design: pass
Validity of the findings: pass
Additional comments: I was the most positive reviewer from the first submission, and I still am positive about this work. It is a bit strange to me that the prior reaction was "obviously the within and between person correlations won't be the same" and yet no one had previously systematically tried to examine why or how, and the typical language used to write about the structure of intelligence (that I have read) seems to ignore this distinction. If the general conclusion is obvious or not, the uniqueness of the data set, and the rhetorical point seem to make this worthy of publication. Though I certainly see why it is fair to point to a data analytic method problem as a reason to delay/deny publication.
 And I do note again that intelligence research is not my primary area of expertise, so my support for the article may be naive....

Regardless, upon a second reading, if it's an easy enough thing to do, I would just want some discussion of further implications of the findings. For example, let's say that researchers, clinicians, and educators have been inappropriately extending their interpretation of the structure of intelligence of from between-person data to explain, predict, or treat something about the structure of intelligence within an individual? If so, what kind of thing might people be getting wrong? For example, let’s say there educational interventions geared towards improving verbal working memory for children with low scores (and let’s assume those interventions work). Further presume that research into this intervention wanted to test whether improving verbal working memory transfers to other cognitive abilities. It seems sensible that the factor structure of intelligence would predict what other abilities are most likely to also be improved, yes? Would such investigations be likely to result in type-2 errors wherein no transfer of training effects were detected because researchers selected the wrong abilities to test because they were based on a between-subjects factor structure, and not within?
Implications to discuss do not need to be applied; e.g., if the factor structure of intelligence emerges with development (e.g., abilities become more differentiated as children age), I imagine the predicted differentiation pattern would be quite different depending on using within vs. between correlations.
I realise all of this kind of discussion would be speculative, but I think some discussion along these lines could illustrate why these findings are important to consider for readers who have the reaction of “these results are obvious”


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: WITHIN-PERSON STRUCTURES OF DAILY COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE DIFFER FROM BETWEEN-PERSON STRUCTURES OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I'm now satisfied with the paper.