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: INTRA-SUBJECT SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS IN PLANTAR PRESSURE ANALYSES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper considers within-participant variability and the effect that the recording of multiple steps has on plantar pressure metrics. Overall this is a relevant and scientifically valid paper that addresses an important issue across a number of fields of study where these measurements are used. The authors consider both “traditional” and novel “pixel based” interpretations which provides additional rigour and depth to the results. I generally support the approach to evaluating the data that the authors took and found the results both novel and interesting. I did however find the manuscript results in the text a little difficult to follow in places and the figures could be improved to showcase the results much more effectively. Below are a number of comments I would like the authors to consider.

Major comment 1.
The authors use the terms “sample size”, “steps”, “pressure records” to refer to the number of within-participant trials. I think that the term “sample size” is potentially confusing as this typically refers to the number of participants used within an experiment rather than the number of trials used to get a stable estimate of the within-participant variability. Sample size also is inherently linked to experimental power which is not directly considered in this manuscript. I would consider “steps” to be most appropriate and I would remove sample size throughout.

Major comment 3.	Habitual variance: This term appears multiple times in the introduction and is ultimately what this paper tries to address however there is no definition of this provided. The authors comment on the effects on habitual variation in the discussion too. I therefore think that some definition of this and perhaps an explicit statement of how the authors intend to measure this (see comment #2 below) should be added to the introduction.

Major comment 4.	Figures: Unfortunately I did not find the figures to be very information or clear to understand. Some attention should be given to making these more clear both visually and in the descriptions.

Figure 1: The markers were too small and the grey data points were barely visible. The key data <50 steps was quite squashed. Why use different coloured markers and lines?
The x and y-axis labels are ambiguous- use simple terms e.g. Range of mean Max Pressure and number of steps. The term “N records in randomly generated subsample” is confusing as you could misinterpreted this as 1000 records were used for each.
Personally I would have liked to have seen the distributions created for each subsampling visualised and for the breadth of the distribution calculated. The wider the distribution, the greater uncertainty around the mean.

Figure 2: This is confusing because you manipulate both time (top row) and subjects (bottom row) without clearly describing this. Furthermore you refer to the “range” yet this is not used in the y-axis label.

Figure 3: The legend should be much more concise. The data in the smaller samples are unclear. The x axis label is different in this compared to the other figures.

Figure 5: Excellent figure. The colourbar labels are not readable.
Experimental design: Velocity units are incorrect in figure captions but check throughout. Should be either m/s or m.s-1.

The authors have conducted a rigourous investigation.
Validity of the findings: Major Comment 2.
For the pixel level analysis the authors provide a quantitative indicator of the “stability” the results – the number of records required for the range in mean MSE to be within 5% of the overall dataset mean. The aim of the authors is to understand the “stability” of the results and therefore I think this or a similar approach should be applied to the singular pressure metrics described in figure 1. Including this will allow the authors to describe the results more precisely. Currently it is much easier to consider the consequences of the pixel level approach than it is the singular metrics because of statements like “MSE only came within 5% of the overall sample size in subsamples >400” versus “the range of basic metric values….increased considerably”. Once this is included I would also considering a table of results as currently it is difficult to extract the key results from the figures except for figure 4.

With the above results it would then be nice to add more specifically to the end of the abstract the number of steps required for the measures to become stable for all approaches taken.
Additional comments: Minor comments

L78 Kinematic parameter OF GAIT suggest multiple steps

L96 How is the reliability of these results being determined – are you planning to use the same approach?

L148 Unfortunately I wouldn’t consider 2008 “recently” anymore….

L150 Please clarify whether this should be deviations from length and width in both part of the sentence or why length only for the registration.

L156 rephrase – foot pressure variance to sample size

L169 Please clarify was this the peak of the whole foot and mean of the whole foot?

L170/1 – This description (“from all five speeds”) seems to indicate that the MSE was calculated across speeds but I don’t think this is the case from the equation – please clarify.

L182 – Trial

L192 – I would reverse this sentence by saying to only present the 1.3 m/s data and the others are available elsewhere.

L255 – This first sentence is long and unclear – please rephrase.

L257 – “the effects of n subsamples….provide general guidance” – As mentioned I don’t believe these results do this easily. Consider main comment #2 and a summary table.

L265 – “This is so…..” – phrasing is awkward.

L280 – Could the phrase “comparing treadmill to overground” be clearer than “quantitative results to non-consecutive datasets”?

L287 – Your study does not consider other hypotheses or research questions therefore I would remove this part of the sentence.

L319 – this is an example of where some more precise stability results would allow you to make more precise statements.


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: INTRA-SUBJECT SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS IN PLANTAR PRESSURE ANALYSES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised manuscript is clear and complete.
Experimental design: The experiments are thorough and have been performed well. I am happy to see the inclusion of the regional results and I find them particularly interesting. I thank the authors for including them.
Validity of the findings: The results presented agree with what I expected and the conclusions logically follow from the results presented. I was particularly interested to see that the regional within-subject variances converged more slowly than the whole foot measurements. I was also happy to get the authors' feedback on why their plantar pressure "reliability" results differed from previously-reported studies.
Additional comments: I once again thank the authors for their thorough revision of the manuscript. I feel that this work would be an excellent addition to the field.


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: INTRA-SUBJECT SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS IN PLANTAR PRESSURE ANALYSES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I am satisfied with the changes and responses that the authors have made in this section based on my first review.
Experimental design: I am satisfied with the changes and responses that the authors have made in this section based on my first review.
Validity of the findings: I am satisfied with the changes and responses that the authors have made in this section based on my first review.
Additional comments: I would like to thank the authors for responding to my comments in a thorough and comprehensive manner. I am satisfied with the changes and responses that the authors have made based on my first review.


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: GENOMIC EVIDENCE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION IN THE REPTILIAN SOCS GENE FAMILY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript ‘Genomic evidence of adaptive evolution in the reptilian SOCS gene family’ proposes to elucidate the evolution of SOCS genes in reptiles. The strength of th epaper is that the authors implemented a diversity of methods to explore phylogenetic relations among genes, recombination and protein motif analysis. However, the relevance of using reptiles as a model system is not clearly justified, and this undermines the work.

Also, from what was found in studies with other vertebrates and SOCS genes (e.g., (Jin et al. 2008), I feel that the authors could have some clear hypotheses and predictions. Having those would make the paper stronger and facilitate understanding.

Finally, English is poor in several parts of the text and should be thoroughly revised.

Figures and tables need much more information in their captions.

Supplementary material should have legends.

Sequence data were deposited in public repository.
Experimental design: The research question is not well defined because the relevance for studying SOCS gene evolution in reptiles is not justified.

The authors used a variety of methods to test for genomic evidence of selection and recombination. Yet, given that the methods are not described in sufficient detail, the rationale of the analyses and the connection with the question is not clear.

The description of the analyses does not provide enough detail to be intelligible and repeatable.
Validity of the findings: As the paper is currently written, it is hard to judge the validity of the findings because the connections between the question and the design are not clear; a better description of the rationale behind the analyses needs to be provided; and results should be presented in a much clearer way.

Conclusions are not linked to original question because the question itself is not explicit.
Additional comments: I think the paper has potential because the authors explored a diversity of data on SOCS genes: phylogenetic analysis, recombination, motif analysis. However, the paper can be stronger if the relevance of using reptiles is clearly justfied and some hypotheses for SOCS early evolution are posed.
Also, the methods and results need to be better presented to enhance understanding and allow readers to judge the validity of the findings.

Below are my comments separated by sections.

Abstract

Line 49: It is not clear what ‘threat processes’ are. I suggest to clarify.
The knowledge gap – elucidating the origin of SOCS genes in reptiles – is not clearly linked to the design of the study. I recommend to make this link explicit, justifying why the deign and analyses you have done helps filling the knowledge gap.
The conclusion could be stronger if not focused on further studies, but focused on the main findings and making the implications to conservation more concrete.
Introduction
The connection between the two first paragraphs and the third, where reptiles are introduced to the story, needs to be made. Why are reptiles interesting to study in the context of SOCS genes evolution?
The question and the context to assess relevance are not clearly stated in the paper. From the title, I’m assuming the question is related to a greater understanding of SOCS gene evolution in early lineages of vertebrates. If so, that needs to be clearly stated in the text.
I suggest to move the sentences in lines 95-100 to the beginning of the third paragraph, but also to better state the relevance of SOCS gene evolution in reptiles. The description of reptiles provided in lines 90-95 does not clearly connect to SOCS gene evolution.

Material and Methods
Line 109: It is fine to place the detailed information about the reptilian genomes in the Supplement, however, some information of the phylogenetic scale (at least the major clades) that was studied is relevant and should be mentioned in the main text. This will allow readers to better assess the implications of this study.
Lines 117-119: Why is it relevant to perform such analysis?
Line 124: Once again, why perform a selective pressure analysis? If hypotheses are stated in the paper, it makes the connection between prediction and analysis much more concrete.

Evolutionary pressure analysis: Although there is quite detail on this analysis, it is very hard to follow what the tests actually do. I suggest starting with a general statement on how these tests work (general rationale) and the main differences between the models used.
Are the null models that the authors refer to testing whether evolution of SOCS genes is neutral? For the reader not completely familiarized with these methods, it is perhaps good to give some more basic information.
Lines 131-132: What are the models M7 and M8?
Recombination analysis and motif analysis: As for all the analyses done in the ms, I missed the justification for such analyses. What relevant information will these analyses provide? How do they connect to the question?  Also, these methods should be more detailed to allow readers to understand and judge the validity of the analyses.

Results

Line 182: This statement is part of the discussion, and not of the results.
Lines 182-184: No information on class I and class II of SOCS genes appears in Figure 1, so the reader cannot verify the result. Also, these classifications should be defined in the methods.
Lines 184-185: Reptilian morphological taxonomy is not shown in Figure 1, so one cannot see the result stated.
Line 192: The limitations and reliability of the methods mentioned should be described in the methods then.
Lines 206-208: A reminder of what ω represents (and a description of it in the methods) will help to understand these results.
Lines 227-228: It is good to show the evidence for these ‘’negative’’ results, something that could give an idea to the readers of how the analysis measures recombination (or lack of it).
Lines 230-231: This sentence is not clear. Is the message that the same motifs were identified in all SOCS proteins?
Lines 233-234: If no citations are provided, one cannot verify if the motif results are indeed consistent with previous findings.
Figure 1 needs to be improved so that one can read the labels. And some more information of the reptilian clades should be provided (Testudines, Crocodilian, Sauria, Serpentes).
Figure 2 seems lacking information on the protein motifs. Given that the method used in this analysis is very poorly described, it is hard to grasp what the figure actually means. For instance, the different colors for each motif indicate codon sequences? All taxa have the same exact motifs?

Discussion

Lines 251-253: This finding is not explicit in the text or in any figure.
Lines 253-255: There is no evidence for this in the ms. How were gene trees and morphological taxonomy compared? What was measured? How was similarity tested?
Lines 275-277: How does this method show that selection pressures were different across clades? And different in what aspect? Mode of selection?
Lines 277-280: Even if it is true that selection pressures are different across species, it does not mean that the cause for this difference is the divergence in diet and habitats. These may be coincidental. Some kind of experimental manipulation would be needed to infer causality.

If results are better presented, then the discussion could focus on  the implications of the findings, perhaps by comparing results within reptilian clades, and then comparing results with other vertebrates. Also, as the abstract suggests, what inferences could be drawn from the results to better understand the early evolution of SOCS genes?


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: GENOMIC EVIDENCE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION IN THE REPTILIAN SOCS GENE FAMILY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript addresses an interesting topic of the SOCS gene family evolutionary history in reptiles. In this study, the authors conducted genomic comparative analysis including gene genealogy and evolutionary pressure analyses based on CDS extracted from deposited genomes, available to date. The main conclusion is that reptiles presented all SCOS genes and that the nature of selection pressure varies in different lineages of reptiles.

In general, the work has a clear, unambiguous, and professional English language used throughout.

Although database searches and phylogenetic analysis might be useful to get a broad overview of the distribution of members of the SCOS gene family, the present manuscript embraces several issues that prevent its publication as it is.

Thus, there are several points in the manuscript that need to clarify.

1. The introduction needs more detail and an improvement in the story-telling approach.
For example, in the first paragraph all sentences started very similar (and repetitive) - SOCS protein, SCOS gene family, SOCS family, and so on. I suggest rewriting these sentences in order to make them more compelling to ready.

2. In lines 75-76 the authors stated that the SOCS family of proteins can be classified based on the amino acid residues. These differences should be addressed properly.

3. Line 78 is very vague. Please mention at least some of the studies and diseases.

4. The link between paragraphs 3 and 4 are non-existent.

5. Line 90 states that "reptiles have a complicated and lengthy evolutionary history". This sentence sounds very awkward to me. The time is relative and depends on a referential - for those who study eukaryotes, 250 MA is quite recent. And the "complicated" was not defined.

6. There is no clear hypothesis.

7. Figures are relevant and of high quality. However, I think that they should be better labeled and described. I miss some crucial information as method (ML), rooted approach, and bootstrap values in Figures 1 and 2.
Experimental design: The bioinformatic approach is appropriate but needs more details. The methodology leaves many open questions that prevent the repeatability of the study.

1. Any reciprocal BLAST was applied?

2. The homology hypothesis was based solely on BLAST results or there were any additional confirmation steps?

3. There wasn't any information about the choice of GTR+T as the best evolutionary model. Any model selection software was used?

4. The reason for using CDS instead of protein sequences for the genealogy was not clarified in the text.

5. Lines 127-128 mentioned that a tree was downloaded from timetree (www.timetree.org) but was not clear which tree was that. I wonder if was a timetree for amniotes. If was, I think that it could be misleading - the newest MS used to build the timetree for reptiles was from 2016 and for amniotes was from 2013. Maybe there are better and more recent alternatives to check the phylogeny.

6. Lines 142-144 mentioned the performance of Z-test selection using JC model. Again, no model selection explicit thought the text.

7. I would like to see the raw data - at least the alignment - available elsewhere. I suggest the use of a repository - Figshare, Github.
Validity of the findings: 1. Each gene was found in single or multiple copies in each genome? Is think it is a piece of relevant information to add.

2. Lines 185-187 mentioned that "phylogenetic trees were supported by reptilian morphological taxonomy". However it is not possible to test this information by looking at Figure 1. The name of the lineages are extremely small and there is no indication of bootstrap values.

3. Figure 1 - Is the tree rooted (mid-pointed?) or unrooted? This information is crucial and was not provided in the text.

4. Are the SOCS gene lineages well supported? I miss the bootstrap values.

5. Lines 236-242 are repetitions from the Introduction. Please rephrase.

6. I think that an aspect that could be better explored by the authors was how the genomic duplication events that occurred in vertebrates related to the evolutionary history of the SOCS gene family.

7. The discussion was very superficial and presented some circular thoughts. For instance, all selective force found was interpreted as a response to a diverse habitat and habits of reptiles. However, this diversification could explain any result found.
In my opinion, the authors should discuss their findings in the light of the different pathways involved in each SOCS members and possible physiological implications for the taxonomic lineages.
Additional comments: I commend the authors for their innovative idea and extensive bioinformatic work. In addition,
the manuscript is clearly written in a professional, unambiguous language. If there are some weakness, they are in the lack of compelling storytelling, a more detailed methodology, and the elaboration of strong conclusions (as I have noted above) which should be improved upon before acceptance.


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

Input:
Title: GENOMIC EVIDENCE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION IN THE REPTILIAN SOCS GENE FAMILY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English still needs some improvement.

Some information are still missing citations.

Figures are much clearer now and legends are adequate.
Raw gene sequences were shared.

Now the hypotheses have been stated, however more background on their justification needs to be provided.

The results are relevant for the hypotheses, but can be better explored in the discussion.
Experimental design: Original research aligned with the aims and scope of the journal.

Better definition of the question, but the knowledge gap still needs better justification.

Investigation was rigorous.

Methods are sound and now described in greater detail so to be understandable and reproducible.
Validity of the findings: Underlying data have been provided (gene sequences).

Conclusions are linked to the research questions, but the discussion is too speculative.
Additional comments: This version has improved in several aspects that were deficient in the previous version, especially in details of methods, in presenting hypotheses and in answering those hypotheses in the discussion.

However, I still think that more context identifying the relevance of studying Reptilian lineages should be presented in the introduction, for instance, mentioning in the introduction the relation between SOCS gene functions and habitat diversification. Also, why do we need a comprehensive review of the evolution of SOCS genes in reptiles? Just because it hasn't been done is not enough. I suggest the authors to talk about early evolution of SOCS genes and compare results with mammalian lineages.

Also, most of the discussion is speculative about the relations between different selection pressures in specific SOCS genes and different environments. I suggest the authors to connect their results with what was found in mammals. Were different selection regimes also found for SOCS genes in different lineages of mammals? If yes, what does that mean for interpreting the evolution of these genes.

Finally, English still needs revision.


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: MALAGASY POLKA DOT MOTHS (NOCTUOIDEA: EREBIDAE: ARCTIINAE: SYNTOMINI) OF AMBOHITANTELY—ENDEMISM IN THE MOST IMPORTANT RELICT OF CENTRAL PLATEAU RAINFOREST IN MADAGASCAR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The reviewed work is an interesting analysis of the endemism of the Réserve Spéciale d’Ambohitantely, on the example of Syntomini. It consists of three parts. The most important part is the redescription and illustration of the adults and genitalia of studied species. The descriptions for the first time of the females of Thyrostictavestigii Griveaud, 1964 and Maculonacliatampoketsya Griveaud, 1969, are especially valuable.
The second part is an analysis of endemism and protection of the studied reserve.
The third part is a description of the polymorphism of males of T. dilata and a general discussion on this topic.
The Authors provide an annotated checklist of the eight species occurring in the Reserve. Two species wider distributed in Madagascar are recorded from the Reserve for the first time. The occurrence of five endemics species described by Griveaud, known only from Ambohitantely was confirmed.
I am a bit surprised that as a result of such intensive field research and analysis of museum material, no new species for science was discovered or no species described by Griveaud was synonymized. The confirmation of 5 endemic species typical for this area, already described by Griveaud, shows that the species composition of Syntonimi of the Reserve is rather stable and Griveaud's systematic research was effective. On the other hand, it indicate that the populations of these species are still preserved and in relatively good condition. This is one of the arguments to protect this area.
Of course, there is no doubt that the studied area is extremely valuable. The concentration of endemic species may  also result from the destruction of the remaining areas and the intensity of taxonomic studies in this area.
Experimental design: Methods are described in detail.
In my opinion, the distinction of the collected material captured at night and  during the day is unnecessary.
Validity of the findings: I believe that the main goal of these studies was the description or redescription of adults and genitalia of selected species. Without a doubt, it is definitely a scientific achievement of this paper, but I suggest to emphasize the most important diagnostic features, both in terms of external structure and genitals. For instance, I wonder if everted vesica of aegeagus have significantly affect the determination of the species?

Molecular studies have been done and it is valuable,  here are used in the study of yellow and black morphotype of T.dilata and female of M.tampoketsya. I suppose the results will be also used in further phylogenetic and systematic analyzes.
Additional comments: The work is written correctly. In my opinion, sometimes is too lengthy and too detailed. Such as, for example, the analysis and remarks on the museum material. On the other hand, it proves a very extensive knowledge of the material and topic.
Sometimes other issues are omitted such as in Methods, the total time of fieldwork in December 2006, 2019, and March 2020. I suggest giving a full range of field research.
The Authors mention that the group greatly requires modern revision, so I suggest adding the photo of M. altitudina in Fig. 3
The description of yellow morphotyp is very detailed. The discussion on polymorphism is valuable, but the source of this phenomenon remains unclear. The mentioned species of Bembecia from Sesiidae are also a good example of polymorphism.
The authors mention the lack of knowledge about the bionomy of these species and their host plants. Perhaps endemism is also a result of interactions with potential endemic host plants. I think it should be the next step in research.
Overall, these are valuable studies of endemism based on the example of Syntomini. I fully recommend the contribution for publication. I have made some corrections/suggestions directly into 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: MALAGASY POLKA DOT MOTHS (NOCTUOIDEA: EREBIDAE: ARCTIINAE: SYNTOMINI) OF AMBOHITANTELY—ENDEMISM IN THE MOST IMPORTANT RELICT OF CENTRAL PLATEAU RAINFOREST IN MADAGASCAR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: In this study, the authors provide a checklist for Syntomini occurring within the Réserve Spéciale d’Ambohitantely. Representing an important step in describing the biodiversity of Madagascar, which is of crucial importance due to the biodiversity crisis. I believe this to be of interest to a wide audience.
Overall the manuscript if well written and easy to read.
I have two minor suggestions:
1. To make numbers, such as elevations easier to read you could present in as 1,250 for example

2. LINE 198: some more details regarding the PCR would be helpful. For example including the concentration of the primers used, and PCR conditions and what sequencer was used for the sequencing.
For example this could read something along these lines:
“PCR was carried out in a 10 µl volume, which included #µl of each Primer (10µM) and the use of hot-start ready PCR mix (StartWarm HS-PCR Mix, A&A Biotechnology, Poland). Reactions were performed under the following conditions…. and DNA sequencing performed on a … Sequencer.”


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: MALAGASY POLKA DOT MOTHS (NOCTUOIDEA: EREBIDAE: ARCTIINAE: SYNTOMINI) OF AMBOHITANTELY—ENDEMISM IN THE MOST IMPORTANT RELICT OF CENTRAL PLATEAU RAINFOREST IN MADAGASCAR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors of the manuscript investigated fauna of Syntomini moths in Ambohitantely, Madagascar. This place represents one of the last forest fragment on Madagascan Central Plateau. These moths belong to a group with incredible high amount of species endemic to Madagascar (99) and five species are known from this area only. The work contains all relevant references. The structure follows classical paper structure. The paper is not experimental and thus does not contain any hypothesis.
Experimental design: The authors visited the research place three times in years 2006, 2019 and 2020, collected the material using light traps and also by a focal sampling during day. Additionally, the authors also investigated material from four national museum collections. As a minor part, the authors also sequenced several species and conducted comparison of their genetic information using classic barcoding and usual software. However, the authors should explain in more detail the legend to Fig. 6, i.e. what means the numbers on the tree (bootstrap values?) and the scale bar.
Validity of the findings: During the survey, the authors documented 7 species of target moth group (58 specimens in total), they failed to find one additional species for which exists a published record. Only three of these recorded species are known to have a wider distribution across Madagascar island.
I see the findings interesting and as the authors are known experts on Madagascan Lepidoptera, there is no doubt about validity of their findings. The study is well written, the specimens are as good as they are and evidently the figures were not manipulated. The figured male and female genitalia of the moths are important for Id of the species by other experts.
So my only concerns is whether such a rather local study is of interest of a wider audience of readers. On the other hand, the fauna of Madagascar is seriously threatened and especially the last fragments of forest of the central Madagascan highland. Thus  leave a final decision to Editor.
Additional comments: I have no additional comments


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

Input:
Title: RARE EVIDENCE FOR ‘GNAWING-LIKE’ BEHAVIOR IN A SMALL-BODIED THEROPOD DINOSAUR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally clear and professionally written (see general comments below)
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Review of Brown et al

Brown et al. present a logical interpretation of bite marks on a hadrosaur ungual as repetitive ‘gnawing-like’ behaviour by a non-avian theropod. This potential behaviour has not been observed before in a non-avian theropod and therefore provides a novel insight into their feeding strategies. In all, I find the identifications and justifications for the various interpretations are reasonable. There are, however, a large number of typos etc that I have noted on the marked-up doc (attached) as well as a number of more detailed comments/queries that need to be addressed. Several additional comments are provided here:

Lines 17, 36 etc:  A constant struggle with interpreting bitemarks in the fossil record is whether they are predated upon or simply scavenged. In general, this requires a bit more caution in the wording throughout the manuscript, saying something like “feeding strategy” rather than “predation” (I acknowledge there are some places where ‘predation’ is also used correctly, eg. Line 313). It also seems at odds with the overall message of the manuscript, which is that some theropods employed gnawing-like behaviour, presumably for mineral supplements. While predatory mammals also gnaw, it is also widespread in non-predatory mammals (rodents etc). While I have no doubt dromaeosaurs were predators, you’re unlikely to be able to make this distinction from a single ungual. However, given that the ungual is apparently from a full grown (or large-bodied) individual, predation is arguably less likely as you point out in the Discussion. So, if you do want to stick your neck out later on in the manuscript and “say” something about the feeding strategy, then scavenging might be the more appropriate option. But in the intro, I'd stick with something more generic like “feeding behaviour/strategy”.
This issue continues to mammals (modern and fossil), as gnawing behaviour is associated with mineral supplements in a wide range of non-carnivorous mammals. Therefore, ‘predations’ in the context of mammals is also incorrect.

Lines 35-36. Even though I think we can agree that birds don’t gnaw, certain vultures (e.g. bearded vulture) will swallow whole bones which certainly counts a prey bone utilisation. Please be clear you are talking about non-avian theropods, not just ‘theropod dinosaurs’. This distinction should also be made in the abstract and elsewhere.

lines 225-228: Njau and Blumenschine (2006) also report V-shaped clefts as distinctive crocodylian feeding traces. The cross sectional morphology of the marks on the ungual were not described, so it is difficult to judge, but marks #3 and maybe #6 look like they might have V-shaped cross sections based on the figure. Some attention to the ungual description and comparison to this type of croc trace (in the Discussion) is required to categorically rule out crocodylian feeding traces.

L248-250: Absence of Troodon feeding traces. Jacobsen and Bromley (2009) identified bite marks that they attribute to Troodon on bone from DPP. I think he also described additional material in his thesis but I wasn’t able to double check that…
Jacobsen, A. R., & Bromley, R. G. (2009). New ichnotaxa based on tooth impressions on dinosaur and whale bones. Geological Quarterly, 53(4), 373-382.

L 375-385: This final paragraph seems like a rather disjointed series of thoughts rather than a coherent summary or “future directions” statement. It might be better to phrase it as a series of hypotheses that might be tested with the proverbial “new discoveries”.


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: RARE EVIDENCE FOR ‘GNAWING-LIKE’ BEHAVIOR IN A SMALL-BODIED THEROPOD DINOSAUR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: There were a lot of typographic errors, misspellings, and grammatical errors in the manuscript as received. I have correctly all of the mistakes that I caught.

I have scribbled several queries about wording in the attached PDF.

Otherwise no major problems.
Experimental design: This all seems pretty reasonable.
Validity of the findings: Minor comments and queries are indicated on the attached, edited (by me) manuscript.

The findings are well-presented, and seem reasonable to me.

The only substantive query I have is about the authors' contention that the bites involved in marking the hadrosaur ungual were forceful. If the bite marks are only 1 mm deep (is that another typographical error? Did the authors mean 1 cm deep?), that doesn't seem to me like it would involve a lot of force.
Additional comments: I have nothing further to add, apart from my editorial markings and questions on the ms itself.


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: RARE EVIDENCE FOR ‘GNAWING-LIKE’ BEHAVIOR IN A SMALL-BODIED THEROPOD DINOSAUR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is clear and well written.  There are a fair amount of typos, but nothing that cannot be easily fixed.  These did not impede my ability to understand what was trying to be said.  The background is thorough, although I would have liked a few more references concerning mammalian gnawing, as it is the standard by which the conclusions are based.  The structure of the article is professional and well put together, and is appropriate in length.  Figures, tables, and raw data are professionally presented.
Experimental design: The study has a clear purpose and was conducted thoroughly.  It elaborates upon new evidence which suggests novel behavior in theropod dinosaurs.  All permits appear to be in order.  Although the methods appear to be sound, some of them are not mentioned in the actual Materials and Methods section.  These should be included upon revision and explained thoroughly.
Validity of the findings: The authors make a clear and very compelling argument, which is an important addition to the state of the science.  There conclusions are appropriate and speculations do not overreach.  The authors account for most alternative explanations for the data presented, although a stressed environment may provide further explanation for the consumption of bones in low economy body regions.
Additional comments: This is a well put together report on an unique bone trace that suggests novel behavior in theropods reminiscent of mammal carnivores.  It is an important addition to the state of the science concerning Mesozoic taphonomy.  No major changes are necessary, but there are a number of minor changes that are needed before publication.

All the methods seem appropriate to the study, but many are not actually mentioned in the Materials and Methods section.  The programs used for the statistics are mentioned (line 104), but the tests themselves are not mentioned (such as the chi^2 and K-S tests), nor is a rational for why they are being used or what they are testing.  The correlation between mark spacing and the teeth of fossil taxa is not mentioned either, and, even though it is explained in the legend of figure 4, it should be outlined in the M&M section instead/as well.

A few more references concerning mammalian feeding traces and carcass consumption sequences may be added if desired.  Please see the works of Binford, Hill, Capaldo, Marean, and/or Pobiner.

Drumheller et al., 2020 also addresses marks occurring on low economy bones such as terminal pedal digits.  Could gnawing on ornithopod unguals also indicate a high stress environment as they postulate for their system?  It would not necessarily conflict with the late stage consumption hypothesis.

Minor edits:
35: change "theropods" to "theropod"
125: change "m" to "mm"
135: put "the" in front of "marks"
143: the last part of the sentence is awkward.  Please rephrase
155: change "examine" to "examined"
190: should it be "equidistances" (I'm honestly not sure)
192: changes "in" to "is"
248: change to "troodontid"
260: change "is" to "in" and "a" to "at"
262: change "makes" to "maker"
332: Change "great" to "greater" and "analogue" to "analogous"


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: RARE EVIDENCE FOR ‘GNAWING-LIKE’ BEHAVIOR IN A SMALL-BODIED THEROPOD DINOSAUR
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I only found a couple of typos (a repeated "the" at line 114, and a "then" when it should be "than" at line 431).  Otherwise, no comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I appreciate the changes made, and this is a valuable contribution to the taphonomic literature.  The authors have specified in their rebuttal that they would like to limit their mammal gnawing references to those where unguals/phalanges are modified.  With this in mind, their citations are adequate.


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: DISCRETE SIMULATION ANALYSIS OF COVID-19 AND PREDICTION OF ISOLATION BED NUMBERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The research utilized a discrete simulation for modelling of the epidemic spread at the city level. They used the results to derive a simple equation aiming to estimate the number of required isolation beds. Despite the title and general remarks throughout the text, the work is not directly linked to COVID-19 spread.
Authors define the gap in epi-/pandemic modelling, leaving decision-makers with no applicable tool to predict the number of required isolation beds. I greatly appreciate their attempt to develop an applicable tool, as well as generalization of parameters to the level of making said parameters easy to understand.
This work, despite its great value as groundwork and a solid basic research foundation, however, requires modifications in the area of its claimed applicability criteria (explained in detail below).
Experimental design: The modelling and technical efforts are adequate for a general, basic research model which may serve as a base for further research.
The authors shall either: a) align their model results to real-world city-level data, if available to them, and present the use-case scenario or b) clearly present limitations of their theoretical approach and avoid claims suggesting that this method may/shall be used as-is by the non-research community. In the case of taking the former approach, the authors may decide to keep using COVID-19  keyword, if the data used will concern the recent SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. If taking the latter approach, the work shall be presented as a general model (which in this reviewer’s personal opinion does not diminish its value at the slightest).
I would propose re-structuring of the reporting structure to better reflect the goal of the paper which, to my understanding, is the development of the tool usable in the non-research environment. The new structure shall show a clear distinction between two sets of analysed model parameters: 1) biological agent-dependent variables, namely (i) the incubation period and (ii) the healing time; and 2) healthcare system-dependent variables, namely (iii) hospital response time and (iv) the population mobility. If the authors would decide to follow previously mentioned COVID-19 use-case scenario, biological agent-dependent variables shall reflect the ongoing discussion on COVID-19 parameters, and healthcare system-dependent variables shall try to represent the situation in the city used as a research case.
Validity of the findings: For the purposes of the presented research, following ANOVA with pairwise comparisons is an acceptable approach. However, pairwise comparisons shall provide confidence intervals of the results, instead of limiting themselves to providing p-values. The provided confidence intervals shall be also interpreted in the context of the effect size.
The presented findings are sufficient for an initial general theoretical model, however, they lack the connection to real-world data to present them as a practical tool or as reflecting COVID-19 situation.
Additional comments: Minor comments:
Line 33: “We established a discrete simulation model for epidemiology.” - This general statement shall be made more precise by adding two bits of information: 1. It’s a city-level model. 2. It’s derived from an existing modelling framework.
Line 55: If authors decide to use COVID-19 as a use-case scenario, the presented “current status” data shall be updated.
Line 65-66: Definitions of parameters shall be presented as they are first invoked.
Lines 79-80: Definition of states shall be provided as they are first invoked.
Lines 89-90: “The probability follows the random number model and is set by the probability value.”  Unclear sentence. Please rephrase.
Line 107: If the authors decide to use real-world data to compare the results of their modelling effort to the real-life COVID-19 example, this assumption shall be discussed in the light of recent findings. (To make the model even more suitable for the application purposes, it would be better to have it parametrized, even if in the presented research the parameter would be set to 0% of the cured population switching to susceptible population, however, if it required more effort than the authors may offer, it’s not a requirement!)
Line 150: The parameter in discussion shall be described properly (not “the hospital cure time”, but “the population mobility”)
Line 199: Please provide the definition of Rt here, as it’s the first time it’s invoked.
Line 274: Please explain in detail what is an assumed definition of “reasonable” in “reasonable number of isolation beds”.
Lines 282-283: Detailed instructions of T1 and T2 estimations shall be presented.
Line 349: See comment on line 274
Lines 360-361: See comment on lines 282-283
Line 375: If the research will not be supplemented with real-life data use-case scenario, COVID-19 related remarks shall be generalized.
Line 396: Please explain what is an assumed definition of “reasonable” in “reasonable request”.


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: DISCRETE SIMULATION ANALYSIS OF COVID-19 AND PREDICTION OF ISOLATION BED NUMBERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study on using computer discrete simulation to analyze the epidemiological features of COVID-19 and provided a possible prediction of isolation bed numbers in response to the pandemic. This study can provide a critical/useful tool for the effectiveness analysis of emerging infectious diseases like COVID-19. However, some critical points modeling and epidemiological aspects should be considered for publication in PeerJ.

There are certain minor language issues that needs attention from the authors.

1. The term "cure time " were used in Lines 36, 40, 43, 139, 148, 369 whilst in the rest of the manuscript, the authors seemed to be using the term "healing time" instead. I wonder if the two terms are actually of the same meaning or they meant differently? If former, then I would suggest the authors unify the terminology to avoid confusion.

2. "represents" would be a better word to replace "means" in Line 276.

3. Lines 317-318, I am not sure if the authors are trying to express the meaning similar of the following "In reality, during the peak of the pandemic, medical staff often have limited access, or no access at all, to personal protective equipment and other medical resources."

4. It is good to reference the Lancet publication describing shelter hospitals practice in China. however, please use the correct name ("Fangcang" with Capital F) to refer the shelter hospitals in Line 340, as this name is a translation from Chinese.

5. Remove the extra "and" in Line 371.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: The authors should provide further illustration and critically review regarding the advantages and limitations in the Discussion Part of the study.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: DISCRETE SIMULATION ANALYSIS OF COVID-19 AND PREDICTION OF ISOLATION BED NUMBERS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Despite the title and general remarks throughout the text, the work, in my humble opinion is still not directly linked to COVID-19 spread. That being said, I recognize the value of the described model, and as it describes any "epidemic", COVID-19 can be treated as a subset of potential applications.
Experimental design: The presented structure is not technically incorrect.
Validity of the findings: The presented findings are sufficient for an initial general theoretical model.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: DISCRETE SIMULATION ANALYSIS OF COVID-19 AND PREDICTION OF ISOLATION BED NUMBERS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I feel appreciated to the author's response and the modifications made to the original manuscript regarding the language issues. The current presentation of your study is now much easier to understand to a broader international audience.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: I would very much like to see the authors to actually include the response towards my previous comment of this part, which is "provide further illustration and critically review regarding the advantages and limitations in the Discussion Part of the study". I understand that the authors might have overlooked my one-sentence comment in this part.

I believe that the other reviewer has helped the authors identified certain areas of limitation regarding this study and based on your reply (i.e. to include real-life data etc.), you decided to go further with such area in another publication. I do think this is acceptable given the scope and impact of this potential publication, and your potential next publication might depend on such publication. Nevertheless, I would once again suggest the authors include at least such limitation in the discussion part.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: DISCRETE SIMULATION ANALYSIS OF COVID-19 AND PREDICTION OF ISOLATION BED NUMBERS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: The authors had made a comprehensive summary regarding the advantages and limitations towards the study they described in the manuscript, which makes the manuscript more critically illustrated. During the process, the authors had helped to improve the manuscript as the current contents now provide more insights for further research and investigation.
Additional comments: I encourage the author team to continue with possible further research directions listed in the manuscript and see more joint research in computer science and healthcare management, which I foresee the potential of discrete simulation in healthcare in China.


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: DISCRETE SIMULATION ANALYSIS OF COVID-19 AND PREDICTION OF ISOLATION BED NUMBERS
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: SIMULTANEOUS CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR ALL PAIRWISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF RAINFALL SERIES IN THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is about modelling distributions with a spike at zero which is an important issue. I tis sugessted to model this by means of log-normal distribution for positive rainfall data ann a one mass distribution at zero when there is no rainfall. Quite appropriate. then the focus is on taking all pariwise differences between coefficinet of variaitons in a set of subgroups and the authors develop some methodology for creating simulatanuous 95% confidenc eintervsl. The paper is well written and as all aspects of interest covered.
Experimental design: not applicable as data were routinely collected.
Validity of the findings: Seesm fine to me.
Additional comments: Make sure that in all graphs showing coverage probability the baseline 0.95 is visible. This allows better assessemnt whether the level is kept or not. Please also make the lines bit thicker in the graphs.

Fine paper, my congralustions.


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: SIMULTANEOUS CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR ALL PAIRWISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF RAINFALL SERIES IN THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The study proposes the use of three different methods to construct simultaneous confidence intervals (SCI) for all pairwise differences between the coefficients of variation of delta-lognormal distributions of rainfall time series to measure the dispersion of rainfall in five different geographic regions in Thailand. I found some merits in both the methodology and results. In my opinion, this paper has a good potential to be published in the journal. However, I have also some concerns on the different parts of the manuscript.
1: The authors need to clearly define the novelty of the paper. I find it difficult to understand if the authors are just using these different methods to demonstrate the efficacies of the proposed methods to identify the dispersion in rainfall time series or if they are focused on identifying the dispersion in rainfall time series in Thailand for some particular reason. One question is there any significance for choosing the particular study area. I feel that the authors need to explain the scope for conducting this study in the particular study area and support its significance with literature.
2: Line: 36-104 Although the authors has provided the findings of various studies in the literature especially the use of CV and various distributions and methods to investigate the dispersion the authors has failed to describe why they have selected ‘delta-lognormal distribution’ or why they have used the specific methods e.g. fiducial generalized confidence interval in this particular study. The authors should dedicate a paragraph to explain their reasoning behind selecting their methodology.
Experimental design: Line: 228-229 In Table 3 We can certainly see that that there is over-estimation based on coverage probabilities with Jeffrey’s rule from the monte-carlo simulation study. The authors however blindly accept to measure the performance purely based on the expected lengths (shorter the better) and claim the particular method is better. Why is FGCI which has close expected lengths but better coverage probabilities could be the right method for SCI estimation in the study area?

Line: 248-249 ‘FGCI is appropriate for constructing these SCIs in cases of small variance with a 249 medium-to-high proportion of non-zero values and a medium-to-large sample size’ this particular conclusion is not supported in the main body of the manuscript. The authors should clearly state the conclusion with focus on the study area since there no conceivable conclusion presented to show any progressive findings discovered in this study.
Validity of the findings: In the discussion section, the authors should discuss the physical meaning of the findings e.g. whether the SCI range between the CVs of daily rainfall data in the five different areas of Thailand is good or bad. The author should calculate the SCI for the five areas separately and provide a separate table rather than combining all the areas into a single combined area (Table 5), which might create a significant statistical drift in the results.

The authors should add additional references in the discussion section and compare the findings with previous studies and establish the significance of the particular study in Thailand.

Line:19 In Abstract, the authors use the term “coverage probabilities”. Explain the meaning of the term. Also explain the need for estimating coverage probabilities in the Introduction section.
Additional comments: The authors should add a map/Table to show how they have segregated the five areas for study in Thailand (and explain if there is any reasoning behind such classification in the introduction section).

Abstract can be improved especially in defining the study’s problem statement.

The language used throughout the manuscript is adequate, however, there is scope for improvement notably in the introduction section.


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: SIMULTANEOUS CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR ALL PAIRWISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF RAINFALL SERIES IN THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper construct simultaneous confidence intervals for all pairwise differences between the coefficients of variation of delta-lognormal distributions using three methods: fiducial generalized confidence interval, Bayesian, and the method of variance estimates recovery.

The paper was be written in professional English. The paper structure, figures and tables is suitable.
Experimental design: There are some points that the authors should correct and improve as follows:
1. The authors should provide the difference between confidence interval and credible interval.
2. In Table 5, the interpretation of the SCIs and credible intervals for all pairwise differences between the CVs must be conducted.
3. In practice, how do the researcher select the Bayesian priors (The Jeffreys’ rule prior and Uniform prior). The author should give the criteria for selection.
Validity of the findings: This paper proposed the new knowledges in statistical theory and applied them in the real situation.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: SIMULTANEOUS CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR ALL PAIRWISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF RAINFALL SERIES IN THAILAND
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no further comments.
Experimental design: ok
Validity of the findings: ok
Additional comments: no further comments


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

Input:
Title: SIMULTANEOUS CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR ALL PAIRWISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF RAINFALL SERIES IN THAILAND
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised article meet the standards
Experimental design: The revised article is now complete and meet the standards
Validity of the findings: The results of revised article are valid
Additional comments: Congratulations for your efforts


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: SIMULTANEOUS CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR ALL PAIRWISE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COEFFICIENTS OF VARIATION OF RAINFALL SERIES IN THAILAND
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper construct simultaneous confidence intervals for all pairwise differences between the coefficients of variation of delta-lognormal distributions using three methods: fiducial generalized confidence interval, Bayesian, and the method of variance estimates recovery.

This paper was written clear and has professional English language usage.
Experimental design: There are few issues for improving as follows:

1. The authors should mention the difference between confidence interval and credible interval.
2. In Algorithms 1 and 2, repeat Steps 2-3 5,000 times and repeat Steps 1-5 15,000 times. How the authors known the number of the repeat? The author should explain the reason.
3. The 95% two-sided confidence intervals and credible intervals must be interpreted.
4. The future research must be added in the paper.
Validity of the findings: This paper proposed the new knowledge in statistical theory and applied them in the real situation.
Additional comments: In my opinion, this paper is suitable and can be published in PeerJ journal.


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

Input:
Title: THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HOST LIPID BODY BIOGENESIS DURING CORAL-DINOFLAGELLATE ENDOSYMBIOSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a well planned experimental work putting together an interesting biological model-coral-dinoflagellate endosymbiosis-with the use of a series of morphological and molecular techniques. The manuscript is well written and illustrated, with results that contribute to a better knowledge of lipid biogenesis in a natural in vivo context.
Experimental design: The work was well planned and executed. The materials and methods sections details all basic information on coral husbandry, light and electron microscopy analysis of the lipid bodies, transcriptomic analysis related to genes involved in the lipid body biogenesis as well as from the endoplasmic reticulum and bioinformatic analysis.
Validity of the findings: The results obtained shows clearly the lipid body formation in the gastrodermal tissue layer of the coral, the rhythmicity  in the size and distribution of lipid bodies. It is convincingly shown that the lipid bodies are formed in the endoplasmic reticulum, as previous shown in other cell types. Transcriptomic analysis support the morphological observations.
Additional comments: Congratulations for this interesting piece of work where an excellent natural in vivo model was used to follow the biosynthesis of lipid bodies.


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

Input:
Title: THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HOST LIPID BODY BIOGENESIS DURING CORAL-DINOFLAGELLATE ENDOSYMBIOSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well writen throught, the structure is clear in general, although there are a few weaknesses in the figures and captions (please see "comments").
Experimental design: Research well design. Methods explained in enough detail. Please see "comments".
Validity of the findings: Please see comments section.
Additional comments: The paper by Chen et al examines lipid body content, size and localisation in the host cells of symbiotic corals (in the species Euphyllia glabrescens). The authors have also studied the diel cycle dynamic in the distribution of lipid bodies across the coral host gastrodermal region, and differential regulation of genes and enzyme potential involved in lipogenesis in E. glabrescens.
This paper is topical and the authors have done careful experiments, including improving their protocol for collection of tentacle samples for TEM analysis. Overall, I think this work provides interesting elements to forward our understanding of lipid body formation, daily dynamic and potentially lipid synthesis.
I would suggest, however, that a few aspects that need to be better clarified before publication of this work:
- Lines 232-236 and Figure 1: Although I appreciate the improvement of the method that the authors have achieved to examine the ultrastructure of the tentacle by the clamping technique I do not think that Figure 1 is justified as part of the results section. This display and related description should be better placed in the Supplemental section.
- I find that the photographs shown in Figure 2 do not unequivocally support the statements made in lines 237-246, particularly because it is not really possible to discern many features from the displays (for example in panels a and b).  The authors should in the first place clarify how they come to the conclusion that the structures that they point to are in fact lipid bodies. This is critical for the further revision of the rest of the manuscript, which is strongly based on a potential close associated between the LB and the RE. For instance, the discussion of potential interaction with other intracellular structures (lines 313-321) should be revised accordingly to clarify how that is extrapolated from the data shown in Figure 2. I wonder if clarity in this figure can be at least partially improved by (i) labelling other components in the photographs and (ii) positioning the arrows more specifically (particularly for example the identification of LBs in panels a and b are confusing).
- I struggled to see why the authors explain the expression of BiP protein as a response to ER- stress. As I see from the M&M the corals were kept under control environmental conditions and corals should be fully acclimated to the light environment. Is the argument that the daily fluctuations in ROS due to the photosynthesis of the symbiont results in ER stress within the host cells also in fully acclimated corals? Can the authors explain that more in detail?
- Figure 5: Could the authors clarify what are the different sizes of the LBs that the images show are? Is there any correspondence of these to the LB sizes that were classified in Figure 3 or are the different sizes a result of the purification step? I’m trying to understand the results presented since in panel Ai there seems to be more “LB” than are recognised by either the lipid marker (Aii) or the ER-tracker (Aiii). Also, panel D in that figure is not clear.
- Apologies if it is my omission but I could not find where the transcriptome data has been deposited.


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

Input:
Title: THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HOST LIPID BODY BIOGENESIS DURING CORAL-DINOFLAGELLATE ENDOSYMBIOSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The report matched categories for basic reporting.
Experimental design: The report matched categories for experimental design.
Validity of the findings: I only have some concerns on the general interpretation & presentation of the data, which are included in the "general comments for the authors".
Additional comments: The paper presents an interesting phenomenon, in which the formation of lipid body in coral during coral-dinoflagellate endosymbiosis, represented by LB size and distributions fluctuate by diel rhythmicity. The study also revealed critical transcriptomic regulation of lipid biosynthesis. The experiments are well-executed, with experimental procedures described in much detail in the Methods section. However, some concerns about the results need to be addressed before this manuscript can be accepted for publication in PeerJ.

Line 254: Please specify the method to count the LB on mesoglea side or coelenteron side (What percentage of the LB falling into a certain side is considered counted as mesoglea or coelenteron?)

Line 277-280: On Figure 4, it appears that PERK and IRE gene expression increased by one log, which means 2 folds, not one fold as stated in this sentence.

I encourage the author to deposit the data of their RNA-Seq analysis. The supplementary data only contained a small number of genes (BIP, PERK, IRE1, etc.). A GO analysis of the RNA-Seq data could reveal even more patterns in gene expression during diel fluctuations.

Figure 5A: the author should perform an analysis of colocalization between Bodipy and ER Tracker signals. This can be done with ImageJ. A merged image of these 2 channels should also be included.

The authors claimed micro-LBs fused to form larger LBs. I assumed that
However, looking at micro-LB, can the authors provide an explaination why the number of Micro-LB did not really change much between light to dark phase. (a one-way ANOVA analysis of samples near mesoglea would be able to distinguish if there is any difference in Micro-LB number over time)

Figure 2: Panels in the second and third columns appeared to be at different scale compated to the corresponding rows in the first column. For example: 2I scale bar is larger than 2G,H even though they are at the same magnification. Working with images at the inaccurate scale could lead to inaccurate quantification of the LB size. I encourage the authors to double check their raw data/images to confirm this.

Figure 5B: what was the time-point chosen for this Western Blot?


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: IMPROVING MAIZE’S N UPTAKE AND N USE EFFICIENCY BY STRENGTHENING ROOTS’ ABSORPTION CAPACITY WHEN INTERCROPPED WITH LEGUMES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Experimental design: Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Additional comments: The maize intercropped with legumes for improving N uptake and N use efficiency by strengthening roots absorption capacity is extremely important, and the research idea is very interesting. The article is well written with very few mistakes found throughout, that should be resolved before it can be published.
Abstract section
Line 36: the sentence (The root-bleeding sap intensity of maize was significantly enhanced by 22.7%-49.3% in IMS and by 37.9%-66.7% in IMP, compared with the MM) not clear can rewrite it?
Introduction section
L78: Add reference for (When crop plants are suffered from environmental stress, the superoxide 88 anion radical (O2 - ) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) etc. are induced).
 Line 91: Add reference for (Root antioxidation response can 92 delay the senescence of plant roots.)
Line 95: The authors said (There is a greater N uptake of maize when intercropped with legumes (Yong et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2017)), but mentioned in line 72 (wheat-maize intercropping), Is it possible to mention about maize intercropped with legumes?
Material and methods section
Line 119:  annual precipitation of 1009.4 mm. should it be mm3?
Line 144: please add comma (,) before and.
Line 158: The authors determined (SOD), (CAT), (GSH) contents. Please add more details about methods for readers.
Line 164: I think this sentence (Skimmed cotton was packed in a self-sealed bag and 165 placed over the plant stalk), it is duplicated. Please delete it.
Line 185 and 186: The authors wrote 2 equations by different type. Please use same size.
Line 188:(performedwith) should add space (performed with)
Line 189: replace first and with comma (,); Should be (SigmaPlot14.0, Origin 2017, and Surfer v. 8.0 190 were used to draw the figures).

Results section
Line 201-203: units (kg kg-1) should be superscript (-1). Please modify in whole manuscript.

Discussion section
Line 252: It will be better to write the name of crop for each citation; (Intercropping increased crops nutrients uptake is reported (Li et al. 2004; Li et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 2017)).
Line 302-303: Add citation please (Cultivation practices change the soil environment to produce nutrient and water stress, and produce the toxic effect of reactive oxygen species (ROS)).
The discussion contained a repetition for the results. I request the authors to reduce the results as much as possible in the discussion section.
The authors indicated In their study that  loading of corn on peanuts or soybeans has enhanced the delaying the root senescence and improving root activity, without discussing the mechanism of this enhancement.
Conclusion section
Recommendations for future studies are needed in the Conclusion chapter. Kindly provide strong recommendations for future researches.

References section:
Line 438: The reference missing some details (Yao, Y., Zhang, C., Camberato, J. J., & Jiang, Y. (2019). Nitrogen and carbon contents, nitrogen use efficiency, and antioxidant responses of perennial ryegrass accessions to nitrogen deficiency. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 42(17), 2092-2101.)

Hopefully, my comments 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: IMPROVING MAIZE’S N UPTAKE AND N USE EFFICIENCY BY STRENGTHENING ROOTS’ ABSORPTION CAPACITY WHEN INTERCROPPED WITH LEGUMES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: English should be corrected, that the content was more clear and grammatically correct.
The article includes sufficient introduction and background.
Relevant literature and appropriately referenced are used.
Experimental design: Methods should be described in more detail.
There is insufficient information on the determination of Root surface area density (RSAD).
Statistical information should be described in more detail.
Validity of the findings: In the manuscript the authors determined the effect of different maize-legume strip intercropping system on underground root growth,  N uptake and N use efficiency of maize.
Additional comments: The manuscript shows data on weather conditions. For what purpose? Years of study were varied in terms of rainfall. What was the influence of years on the features of the roots (e.g. RSAD) and other parameters? Does improving the N uptake and nitrogen efficiency of maize by strengthening roots absorption capacity when strip intercropped with legumes depend on weather conditions?
Fertilization rates should be presented in the pure component.
The authors included too much detailed information about the results in the Abstract and Conclusions. In conclusions, general statements should be included.


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: IMPROVING MAIZE’S N UPTAKE AND N USE EFFICIENCY BY STRENGTHENING ROOTS’ ABSORPTION CAPACITY WHEN INTERCROPPED WITH LEGUMES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: English throughout the work should be checked and corrected, that the content was clear and grammatically correct.
Originality/novelty is average.
Quality of presentation is average.
Literature well referenced and relevant.
Structure conforms to PeerJ standards.
Figures are relevant, well labelled and described.
Experimental design: The methods should be more adequately described.
The descriptions in the methodology should be more precise.
Validity of the findings: Authors gives some new information about the intercropped cultivation of maize with legumes
Additional comments: The introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references.
The results are rather clearly presented and the conclusions are supported by the results.
But the methods should be more adequately described.The descriptions in the methodology should be more precise.

English throughout the work should be checked and corrected, that the content was clear and grammatically correct.
Information on technical and other errors is provided in the text.

Specific comments
Line 39-40 - uncommon abbreviations should be spelled out at first use: GSH, SOD, CAT

Line 102-105 -  Comment on language and grammar issues - the English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. Some examples where the language could be improved “Additionally, there is limited information on the intercropping delaying maize root senescence, and how the change of antioxidant enzyme activity and antioxidants in the root system of intercropping maize is still unknown”.

Line 139-143 - the dates of sowing and harvesting individual plants in the years of use are not clearly indicated (too many numbers)

Line 152-153 - the company and country of production should be specified

Line 157 - Then, some were dried at 85 ℃ to determine the biomass. It is not clear. If mass was determined, why was only "some"

Line 188-190 - Statistical analysis- should be described in more detail. What Anova was used? Was the same method used to evaluate all the features?

Line  324-326- Conclusions - in conclusions, the exact values of the assessed features should not be quoted, but general statements should be made

The weather conditions are given in Figure 1, but no description is provided. The years of research were very varied in terms of precipitation. In one year, rainfall is probably 50% less than in the second. The amount of precipitation in individual years is not given. The influence of weather conditions (precipitation) on the obtained results is also not taken into account.

Other information is provided in the text.


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: IMPROVING MAIZE’S N UPTAKE AND N USE EFFICIENCY BY STRENGTHENING ROOTS’ ABSORPTION CAPACITY WHEN INTERCROPPED WITH LEGUMES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: PARTICULARITIES OF THE CHANGES IN YOUNG SWIMMERS’ BODY ADAPTATION TO THE STIMULI OF PHYSICAL AND MENTAL STRESS IN SPORTS TRAINING PROCESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The general conception of the study is particularly good, the topic is important and current. I highlight the great difficulty of conducting longitudinal studies in swimming, with multidimensional analysis, throughout a training season. On the other hand, there are several issues that need to be corrected, better explained, or presented to facilitate the understanding of the methods, the results and the discussion. Specially the paper organization should be redone.
Experimental design: The study is well structured, with an appropriate design. The small sample size is limiting, as the
authors assume, but studies with this design, in swimming, are hardly performed with much larger sample size.
Validity of the findings: The format of the tables and figures, as the authors carried out, makes the evaluation difficult.
The results present a lot of text, there is little objectivity, and the tables and figures are not selfexplanatory, so evaluating the validity of the findings is difficult. However, it seems that they agree with the literature of the area.
Additional comments: Abstract: there is no background, only the objectives.
Please do not use the term "styles" when referring to the different strokes, but prefer "strokes", for example: backstroke, breastroke, front crawl stroke, fly stroke. This is repeated throughout the article In the blood, the concentration of lactic acid is not measured, but of lactate. Biochemically, lactic acid, produced within muscle fibers, is rapidly reduced to lactate, and is thus concentrated in the blood.
CWT, CPST, SCAT, CT are abbreviations that were not previously defined in the abstract. This prevents them from being understood. Adaptation of lactic anaerobic capacity is related to the increase of lactate concentration for the
same or greater swimming speed. Reducing the lactate concentration to the same, or greater speed is aerobic adaptation. This is not clear in the abstract.
Please do not mix methods with results: when describing statistical procedures, do not reference them in the results.
There is no space between number and % the correct is 5%, not 5 %.

Introduction:
The following references, studies with longitudinal analyzes in swimming, are necessary to better introduce the study and, after discuss the results:
1. Dias, P., Marques, M., Marinho, D. (2012). Performance evaluation in young swimmers
during 28 weeks of training. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 12, 30-38.
2. Franken, M., Mazzola, P.N., Dutra-Filho, C.S. et al. Acute biochemical and
physiological responses to swimming training series performed at intensities
based on the 400-m front crawl speed. Sport Sci Health 14, 633–638 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-018-0472-z
3. Machado, M., Júnior, O., Marques, A., Colantonio, E., Cyrino, E., De Mello, M. (2011).
Effect of 12 weeks of training on critical velocity and maximal lactate steady state in
swimmers. European Journal of Sport Science, 11, 165-170.
4. Morais, J., Garrido, N., Marques, M., Silva, A., Marinho, D., Barbosa, T. (2013). The
influence of anthropometric, kinematic and energetic variables and gender on
swimming performance in youth athletes. Journal of Human Kinetics, 39, 203-211 DOI:
10.2478 / hukin-2013-0083
5. Morais, J. E., Marques, M. C., Marinho, D. A., Silva, A. J., Barbosa, T. M. (2014).
Longitudinal modeling in sports: Young swimmers ’performance and biomechanics
profile. Human Movement Science, 37, 111–122. doi: 10.1016 / j.humov.2014.07.005
6. Morais, J., Forte, P., Silva, A., Barbosa, T., Marinho, D. (2020). Data modeling for interand intra-individual stability of young swimmers ’performance: a longitudinal cluster
analysis. Research Quarterly For Exercise And Sport, published online ahead of print, 1-
13. DOI: 10.1080 / 02701367.2019.1708235
7. Moreira, M., Morais, J., Marinho, D., Silva, A., Barbosa, T., Costa, M. (2014). Growth
influences biomechanical profile of talented swimmers during the summer break. Sports
Biomechanics, 13, 62-74.
8. Tucher, G., Castro, F. A. S., Garrido, N., Fernandes, R. (2019). Monitoring changes over a
training macrocycle in regional age-group swimmers. Journal of human kinetics, 69, 213-
223.
9. Zacca, R., Azevedo, R., Chainok, P., Vilas-Boas, J.P., Castro, F.A., Pyne, D., Fernandes, R.
(2018). Monitoring age-group swimmers over a training macrocycle: energetics,
technique, and anthropometrics. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 34,
818-827.
10. Zacca, R., Azevedo, R., Ramos, V. R. Jr., Abraldes, J. A., Vilas-Boas, J. P., Castro, F. A. S.,
Pyne, D. B., Fernandes, R. J. (2019a). Biophysical follow-up of age-group swimmers
during a traditional three-peak preparation program. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, Volume Publish Ahead of Print - Issue - doi: 10.1519 /
JSC.0000000000002964

From line 79 to line 83, specific and current references are required.
Lines 103 - 105: no more than three references are required for each quote. Only mention the most important ones, without repetition of content. Throughout the text, try to maintain the standard.
Try to write paragraphs of 8 to 12 lines, with 3 to 5 sentences. Exceptionally long paragraphs make it difficult to understand the topic. Try to leave only one topic per paragraph.

Materials and methods
Lines 122 - 124: In place of "juniors" and "cadets" use age in years, as this categorization varies among countries.
126: What do you mean "Sportsmen"? Are the swimmers?
139 - 144: Is this paragraph necessary? Does it add anything? Explain the methods?
168 - 170: it is not necessary to describe where the analysis was carried out, but it is necessary to explain the analysis procedure.
Lines 203 and 210: which tests are 8 x 100 m and 2 x 50 m? What are the references? Between the number and the unit there is a space: it is 100 m, not 100m (but it is 5% and not 5 %).
221: While inferential statistics were used for nonparametric data, why was the descriptive with mean and standard error of the mean? I suggest median, standard deviations, range... more suitable procedures for nonparametric data.
Results There is little objectivity in the paragraphs preceding each Table and Figure. These paragraphs should briefly present what will be presented, pointing out the main results.
234 and throughout: after describing the statistical procedures, they should not be, again, in the results.
294: The competitive event is called 400 m freestyle, not front crawl, for example.
295 and beyond: training zones have not been previously defined in the introduction or methods.

Discussion
In comparison to the results presented, the discussion is short and superficial. I strongly suggest reading the recommended references to deepen the discussion.

Conclusion
It is too long, must be just related to the objectives.


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: PARTICULARITIES OF THE CHANGES IN YOUNG SWIMMERS’ BODY ADAPTATION TO THE STIMULI OF PHYSICAL AND MENTAL STRESS IN SPORTS TRAINING PROCESS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript, I have enjoyed reading it. The manuscript presents a study over different periods (i.e. baseline, training, competition ...) of a very small sample of training swimmers of both genders. the most relevant observations suggest differences in some of the control moments. The experimental design conforms to the research question proposed by the authors. However, there are some variables that could have been taken into account and It could had been consider a sufficient sample of participants for the results to have greater inferential validity.

Kirschbaum, C., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1989). Salivary cortisol in psychobiological research: an overview. Neuropsychobiology, 22(3), 150-169.

Jiménez, M., Aguilar, R., & Alvero-Cruz, J. R. (2012). Effects of victory and defeat on testosterone and cortisol response to competition: evidence for same response patterns in men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(9), 1577-1581.

Introduction is adequate, but I would like to consider the line 96 term "the stress hormone" referring to prolactin. Prolactics is undoubtedly part of the stress response, but considering prolactics as "the stress hormone" might be incorrect. If any hormone has been traditionally indicated with this definition, it would be cortisol; also in sport (see Kirschbaum & Hellhammer, 1989, Jiménez et al., 2012).

I would also like to highlight the lack of control on the coaching styles during training as a driver of the stress response in young swimmers (Jiménez et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2021). Likewise, the motivational climate is another determining factor to take into account and that could affect the results (see Hogue et al, 2017; Jiménez et al., 2019). I would recommend including these references in the introduction and its considering as study limitation.

Hogue, C. M., Fry, M. D., & Fry, A. C. (2017). The differential impact of motivational climate on adolescents’ psychological and physiological stress responses. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 30, 118-127.

Jiménez, M., Fernández-Navas, M., Alvero-Cruz, J. R., García-Romero, J., García-Coll, V., Rivilla, I., & Clemente-Suárez, V. J. (2019). Differences in psychoneuroendocrine stress responses of high-level swimmers depending on autocratic and democratic coaching style. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(24), 5089.

Kim, S., Park, S., Love, A., & Pang, T. C. (2021). Coaching style, sport enjoyment, and intent to continue participation among artistic swimmers. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 1747954120984054.
Experimental design: The experimental design presents an important limitation: the small sample. 3 boys and 3 girls are insufficient to infer the results. In addition to the consequent gender differences in response to stress, which have not been adequately evaluated.

Line 145 and following: Could the authors include Cronbach's alpha values for each of the psychometric tools?

Line 159: When the authors refer to the "baseline period", could they elaborate more clearly what they consider to be the "baseline period"? A day without physical activity? What time of day were the samples taken, etc.?

Line 160 and following: Could the authors clearly specify the hours of blood sampling and the differences with which they were taken in each athlete, if any? Could you also indicate if the samples "pre" before or after the warm-up in each of the situations? Especially since circadian cycles play an important role in these types of studies.

Why was a lactate sample not taken within 60 seconds of exertion? Could authors indicate  devices (i.e. blood lactate & glucose) measurement error and limit detections?
Validity of the findings: I am not sure if it was the best statistical approaching. But, in any case, effect size and power effect must be included. Power effect is completely necessary with a short samples. Please, consider include effect sizes and power effects to all statistical analysis.

Table 5 and table 6 must incorporate p values for all significative correlations. (*) are not presented on tables.
Additional comments: The study is very interesting and provides information that I believe will be of interest to the readers of this journal. But such a small sample is always a problem to infer results, and caution should be the basis for discussion and presentation of conclusions and results. I ask the authors to consider my comments and include a well-developed study limitation section. I also suggest that the authors take into account the incorporation of the mentioned quotes or any others that they consider about the importance of coaching styles and motivational climate on  young swimmers stress response to training and competition. Manuscript could improve substantially. Thank you for allowing me to enjoy reading your research, it is always an honor to contribute to your review.