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: GENETIC CHANGES IN THE EPAS1 GENE BETWEEN TIBETAN AND HAN ETHNIC GROUPS AND ADAPTATION TO THE PLATEAU HYPOXIC ENVIRONMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The group of the Air Force Medical Center, PLA, Beijing, China, studied genetic changes in the EPAS1 gene between Tibetan and Han ethnic groups and adaptation to the plateau hypoxic environment. Genomics, transcriptomic microarray, and whole-genome linkage analysis have revealed that the hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) plays an important role in altitude hypoxia adaptation. Studies have shown that HIF is widely expressed in mammals and that it plays a key role in hypoxia and can promote high-altitude adaptation. Recently, it has been emphasized on endothelial PAS domain protein 1 (EPAS1) (Sergi C, 2019; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31015364). In fact, a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in EPAS1 is closely related to the low level of hemoglobin (Hb) in Tibetan populations. EPAS1 expression plays an important role in oxygen metabolism and sensing. The authors found that under plateau hypoxic conditions, the Han population of the plains may rapidly acclimate to hypoxia through the EPAS1 gene polymorphism and increase EPAS1 mRNA expression and even changes in the hemoglobin conformation. The manuscript is well structured, but typos and grammar are deficient. The references have different citation styles. The association of EPAS1 with congenital heart disease may be considered in the discussion.
Experimental design: The experimental design is appropriate and research questions are well defined. The method of selection of patients for Raman spectroscopy is not clear and needs to be clarified (e.g., random number generator).
Validity of the findings: All data seem to be robust and statistically sound. Conclusions are adequate, although further studies on experimental studies may be important for the future. In particular, the discussion evidenced on dysmorphology of EPAS1 and the role of epigenetics may be emphasized in the manuscript. Please see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31015364.
The adaptation of the Han population to the plateau may have important consequences for future generations.
Additional comments: To the best of my knowledge, I found the manuscript an interesting one that will be important to medicine. I hope that the authors may consider my suggestions as indicated above to 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: GENETIC CHANGES IN THE EPAS1 GENE BETWEEN TIBETAN AND HAN ETHNIC GROUPS AND ADAPTATION TO THE PLATEAU HYPOXIC ENVIRONMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Improved manuscript!
Experimental design: Good design and good methodology.
Validity of the findings: Valid data that may be very useful for studies on VEGF interaction.
Additional comments: Thank you for improving 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: EVALUATION OF ULTRASOUND-GUIDED LATERAL THORACOLUMBAR INTERFASCIAL PLANE BLOCK FOR POSTOPERATIVE ANALGESIA IN LUMBAR SPINE FUSION SURGERY: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, AND CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Your paper would be greatly enhanced by an expert in the field who is fluent in English. There are numerous grammatical errors and some unambiguous text.
Please check the title and body of the article. Is it consistent? For example:
Line 1:  lateral thoracolumbar interfascial plane block.
Line 31: bilateral single-shot US-TLIP.
Experimental design: Does saline injection in the control group increase postoperative pain in patients?
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Why does nerve block occur after general anesthesia?
How to evaluate the effect of nerve block under general anesthesia in patients?


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: EVALUATION OF ULTRASOUND-GUIDED LATERAL THORACOLUMBAR INTERFASCIAL PLANE BLOCK FOR POSTOPERATIVE ANALGESIA IN LUMBAR SPINE FUSION SURGERY: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, AND CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The language need to be proficiently edited. Not enough information about the research background as well as many repetitions of the same ideas.
Experimental design: Methods are not clear. primary & secondary end points wasn't mentioned.
Validity of the findings: Many assumptions in the discussion weren't supported from the current results or previous studies
Additional comments: - The number of patients enrolled is inconsistent. Why is there difference between number of patients enrolled under the patients & methods vs under the results?

-line 76 the block is for ventral rami of spinal nerves, line 155 the block is for dorsal rami
- A detailed anatomy and sono-anatomy of the area to be blocked should be elaborated
- line 157, you mentioned that the perioperative opioid/propofol requirement are reduced. In a research examining the analgesic efficacy of an intervention, a more detailed information about the exact timing (pre, intra and postoperative), the degree of ….etc opioid requirements.

-Furthermore; no comment whatsoever on whether there’re complications related to opioids, Local anesthetics or the regional technique.

- what kind of spinal surgery enrolled patient underwent?

- please be advised to revise how to write a manuscript discussion. And rewrite the discussion again.


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: EVALUATION OF ULTRASOUND-GUIDED LATERAL THORACOLUMBAR INTERFASCIAL PLANE BLOCK FOR POSTOPERATIVE ANALGESIA IN LUMBAR SPINE FUSION SURGERY: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, AND CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I am glad to see your paper. Your paper was postoperative analgesic efficacy of lateral TLIP block. TLIP block was one of the most attention nerve block to now, I am very interested in the TLIP block.
Although your paper was mentioned the prospective study for the first time, it was wrong (PMID: 29318534). Therefore, it was not novelty. I recommended you to mention clearly why the paper was important.
Best regards.


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: EVALUATION OF ULTRASOUND-GUIDED LATERAL THORACOLUMBAR INTERFASCIAL PLANE BLOCK FOR POSTOPERATIVE ANALGESIA IN LUMBAR SPINE FUSION SURGERY: A PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, AND CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Normal
Experimental design: Normal
Validity of the findings: The dindings was clear. However, it was not novelty.
Additional comments: I'll leave it to you


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: PREDICTING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENDEMIC SEABIRD PELECANUS THAGUS IN THE HUMBOLDT CURRENT LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM UNDER DIFFERENT CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: I think that the analysis of the potential distribution in climate change scenarios suffers from a previous analysis about the behaviour and reproductive biology of the pelicans. When you visit the coast of Chile or Peru you can notice that there is a seasonal pattern in the distribution of pelicans, which I think cannot be ignored in this study. I think that this underlying problem leads to the formulation of a hypothesis that is actually applicable to a wide variety of organisms, and the question arises why you are studying the Peruvian pelican? Why do you think this is a good model to investigate the effects of climate change?  In addition, the distinctive and new in this study could be that it considers the behaviour and seasonality in the pelican's biology and not only a collection of sightings recording the presence of individuals in sites not categorized by their use. That approach can provide relevant information about future changes in the reproductive distribution of this species, which could be useful for planning the present and future uses of the coastal zones.
Validity of the findings: The results you presented here are representative of the known geographical distribution of the Peruvian pelican. However, for a species like this that during the reproductive season concentrates in some areas along the Peruvian and Chilean coast, these results are confounding. You mentioned that the information comes from sightings, but it is not indicated which of the points included in the analysis corresponding to nesting colonies or resting places. Normally resting places are occupied by pelicans during the non-breeding period. After reproduction, the pelicans disperse along the coast and arrive at places they use to rest, but they also feed on discards in fishing coves. This last behaviour could generate a very important bias in the distribution when considering sighting records that come from fishing terminals. Thus, I believe that it is absolutely necessary to filter the data considering the behaviour of the pelicans and to focus the predictions and the analysis using confirmed information regarding the breeding colonies. This latter approach could reveal more interesting patterns and predictions, given that the reproductive value of the species depends fundamentally on its ability to find suitable sites for nesting near feeding sources.
Additional comments: This is a very interesting study that without a doubt would contribute to improving the knowledge of the ecology of the birds of the Humboldt Current System, especially in the case of endemic species. I am convinced that authors can overcome methodological issues that generate doubts in their results and conclusions. For example, to describe and characterize the oceanographic habitats, you can obtain environmental variables from the Aqua MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite. Finally, I want to encourage the author to continue working on this interesting article that will be very useful to better understand the effects of climate change.


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: PREDICTING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENDEMIC SEABIRD PELECANUS THAGUS IN THE HUMBOLDT CURRENT LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM UNDER DIFFERENT CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written using clear language throughout. However, more detail should be provided about the data sources for both occurrence and environmental data, and how they entered the species distribution model. Also, Figure 2 is hard to interpret in its current form. My suggestions are as follows

(1) I think a better contextualisation on SDMs for highly mobile pelagic species in the face of both measurement uncertainty and SDM model uncertainty would be good. See e.g. Quillfeld et al. 2017  https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01238 . In particular it would be helpful to provide more detail on how the occurrence records arose (i.e. at-sea sightings, tracking, etc.)

(2) the occurrence data (1967-2015) and the oceanographic data (2004-2013) cover diufferent time ranges. Please give more detail on how this was dealt with when fitting the model.

(3) In the dioscussion you touch on the topic of seabird-fisheries interactions in the face of ENSO variability. Much work has been done on this topic since the cited works from the 1980's which would enrich the discussion (see e.g. Passuni et al 2016  https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1134.1, Barbraud et al. 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02485).

(4) Figure 2 as presented currently does a poor job of communicating the central message of the manuscript (potential changes in species distribution). I would recommend to redraw it showing relative change to the current distribution in panels B and C rather than absolute occurrence probabilities.
Experimental design: The research question is in principle meaningful, however, I am not convinced by two key  modelling decisions:

(1) the authors decided to not including oceanographic variables in the climate forecast scenarios, despite their own results which show the importance of primary production in particular (Table 2). The statement by the authors on lines 124-125 that such projections are not available is plainly wrong. Projections of net primary productivity, sea surface temperature and other oceanographic variables under different IPCC scenarios are available (see e.g. Bopp et al. 2013 doi:10.5194/bg-10-6225-2013), and have been used in other modelling studies projecting distributional change of marine species (e.g. Letessier et al. 2011 https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/fbr033, Jones & Cheung 2015 doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu172)

(2) the authors decided model only the impact of mean climate change, despite the fact that the ecosystem at hand is subject to strong shorter-term climate variability as a result of ENSO. While projections of future ENSO effects are arguably less certain than those of the mean climate, I would have liked to see at least a contextualisation of the magnitudes of effects on those two time scales. I.e. how does the predicted mean temperature/primary prodcution/etc for 2100 compare to the extremes of current ENSO cycles.
Validity of the findings: As stated above - while I belive the findings are technically sound given the chosen model and input data, I am sceptical that the model is adequate for its purpose.

Much of this (e.g. the importance of shorter term variability through ENSO, the importance of using oceanographic variables, the interactions between seabirds and fisheries) is touched on in the discussion, and while I don't think it is realistic to model all of these factors, I do feel that some of them should have been included in the actual analysis and not just as discussion points.
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: PREDICTING THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ENDEMIC SEABIRD PELECANUS THAGUS IN THE HUMBOLDT CURRENT LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM UNDER DIFFERENT CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The basic reporting is appropriate, but the text added in revision requires copy editing, in particular there I find the use of the term "reproductive distribution (lines 28; 35; 69; and several other places) confusing, and wouls suggest replacing it with "breeding distribution" or "breeding season distribution" throughout.

The added sections lines 100-103; 187-190; 228-232; 253-258 require copy editing.
Experimental design: The authors did not fundamentally revise their analysis since the initial submission. As such my assessment of the analysis remains unchanged.
Validity of the findings: The findings are technically sound given the model and input data, but I believe the conclusions that can be drawn from this are limited given the model is a very reduced representation of the study system.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed most of the issues raised about the presentation, but have not revised their analysis approach.

The findings are technically sound given the model and input data, and the write up is adequate (and honest about the model limitations) - so I believe the paper fulfills the PeerJ criteria - but requires some minor copy editing.


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: AUTOMATED, PHYLOGENY-BASED GENOTYPE DELIMITATION OF THE HEPATITIS VIRUSES HBV AND HCV
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and professional English language used throughout. Data and images were checked and seem right. Intro & background are suitable. Raw data supplied.
Some minor changes are described below.
- Add a footnote with a short description for the supplementary figures.
- Review the bibliography format, for example on line 507 does not have the title of the paper (507 Thézé, J., Lopez-Vaamonde, C., Cory, J. S., & Herniou, E. A. (2018). Viruses, 10(7), 366).
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: The data is robust. The conclusions are well established, linked to the original research question and limited to the results of support. However, a small paragraph about the differences between current ICTV classification and mPTP method could be added in the discussion of the results. Should the new clusters they detected be added? Or should they not be taken into account? In case the last option is correct, why then does mPTP separate them as different clusters? It's a mistake?
Additional comments: The manuscript entitled " Automated, phylogeny-based genotype delimitation of the Hepatitis Viruses HBV and HCV” by Serdari and collaborators, evaluates the use of computational methods for molecular species delimitation in hepatitis virus classification. They use two correctly selected data sets of HBV and HCV and two different methods (mPTP and ABGD), then comparing the results obtained with the current ICTV classification.
In my view, the paper presents a good development and analysis of the results obtained. The manuscript is interesting and provides important information that increases knowledge about the use of the multi-rate Poisson Tree Processes and the classification of hepatitis viruses. So it would be useful for virologists and bioinformatics researchers. Therefore, it could be accepted. Some minor changes are described below.
- Add in the discussion about the discrepancies between the current ICTV classification and those proposed by the mPTP method, a small paragraph mentioning what may be due. Should the new clusters they detected be added? Or should they not be taken into account? In case the last option is correct, why then does mPTP separate them as different clusters? It's a mistake?
- Add a footnote with a short description for the supplementary figures
- Review the bibliography format, for example on line 507 does not have the title of the paper (507 Thézé, J., Lopez-Vaamonde, C., Cory, J. S., & Herniou, E. A. (2018). Viruses, 10(7), 366).


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: AUTOMATED, PHYLOGENY-BASED GENOTYPE DELIMITATION OF THE HEPATITIS VIRUSES HBV AND HCV
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: I strongly suggest the authors clarify the cutoff value used for showing/not showing support values in Figures 1 and 2.
Similarly, it would be interesting to know the support values for the sub-trees corresponding to all the genotypes shown in Figures 1 and 2 (irrespective of cutoff value used).
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: AUTOMATED, PHYLOGENY-BASED GENOTYPE DELIMITATION OF THE HEPATITIS VIRUSES HBV AND HCV
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The study assessed whether the multi-rate Poisson Tree Processes (mPTP) algorithm can be used in the classification of viruses according to ICTV.
Authors used sequences of hepatitis B and C viruses (HBV and HCV, respectively) to test the algorithm. The distance-based “Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery” tool (ABGD) was also used in the analysis to compare with mPTP.
Of note, analysis using mPTP is based on the input of a phylogenetic tree, whereas for ABGD the user must define other specific parameters. Results showed that HBV and HCV classification using mPTP corresponds well to the ICTV classification,
However, minor errors were found along the text, which should be correct before the article is published. Corrections were suggested electronically in the pdf file.
Experimental design: The study is well designed.
Validity of the findings: Results are robust and well explained.
Additional comments: The study assessed whether the multi-rate Poisson Tree Processes (mPTP) algorithm can be used in the classification of viruses according to ICTV.
Authors used sequences of hepatitis B and C viruses (HBV and HCV, respectively) to test the algorithm. The distance-based “Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery” tool (ABGD) was also used in the analysis to compare with mPTP.
Of note, analysis using mPTP is based on the input of a phylogenetic tree, whereas for ABGD the user must define other specific parameters. Results showed that HBV and HCV classification using mPTP corresponds well to the ICTV classification,
The study is well designed, results are robust and well shown and the article is well written. However, minor errors were found along the text, which should be correct before the article is published.
Corrections were suggested electronically in the pdf file.


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: AUTOMATED, PHYLOGENY-BASED GENOTYPE DELIMITATION OF THE HEPATITIS VIRUSES HBV AND HCV
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I believe that the authors have improved the work according to the indications of the reviewers. Likewise, the responses by the authors contemplate the data requested and the doubts raised.
Therefore, I consider that the work "Automated, phylogeny based genotype delimitation of Hepatitis Viruses HBV and HCV" can be accepted for publication in PeerJ.


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

Input:
Title: AUTOMATED, PHYLOGENY-BASED GENOTYPE DELIMITATION OF THE HEPATITIS VIRUSES HBV AND HCV
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors made several corrections along the manuscript according to the reviewers comments and suggestions. However, I believe that they did not understand the corrections and suggestions that I made on the pdf file, therefore I re-corrected in the Word document file, using track changes.
In my opinion, after these changes are made, the manuscript is suitable for publication.
Experimental design: Good
Validity of the findings: Good
Additional comments: The authors made several corrections along the manuscript according to the reviewers comments and suggestions. However, I believe that they did not understand the corrections and suggestions that I made on the pdf file, therefore I re-corrected in the Word document file, using track changes.
In my opinion, after these changes are made, the manuscript is suitable for publication.


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION OF HUB GENES AND SMALL-MOLECULE COMPOUNDS RELATED TO INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE WITH BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: REVIEW For PeerJ #36749
May14, 2019
General Comments
  I think this is an interesting bioinformatics study to identify hub genes associated with cerebral hemorrhage (ICH) as therapeutic targets and identify potential compounds for the treatment of ICH. The GSE24265 dataset was downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database to screen for differentially expressed genes (DEGs) for ICH. The function and pathway of DEGs were determined by gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analyses. We constructed a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network to clarify the interrelationships of DEGs and select hub genes with significant interactions. Finally, the DEGs were analyzed by using the CMap tool to identify molecular compounds with potential therapeutic effects.
 As one of the stroke physician who has been taking care of patients with ICH, authors results obtained from mainly data within the web site looks quite attractive, however, how and why authors determined the statistically significant criteria such as a P-value of < 0.05 and a [logFC] of > 2 as the cut-off condition for these datasets are not well described for general authors. If authors could revise these points, that would help a lot to initiate this type of bioinformatics stroke research very soon.
Experimental design: none
Validity of the findings: Authors reported new method and result of stroke research. It is quite interesting.
Additional comments: I think this is an interesting bioinformatics study to identify hub genes associated with cerebral hemorrhage (ICH) as therapeutic targets and identify potential compounds for the treatment of ICH. The GSE24265 dataset was downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database to screen for differentially expressed genes (DEGs) for ICH. The function and pathway of DEGs were determined by gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analyses. We constructed a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network to clarify the interrelationships of DEGs and select hub genes with significant interactions. Finally, the DEGs were analyzed by using the CMap tool to identify molecular compounds with potential therapeutic effects.
 As one of the stroke physician who has been taking care of patients with ICH, authors results obtained from mainly data within the web site looks quite attractive, however, how and why authors determined the statistically significant criteria such as a P-value of < 0.05 and a [logFC] of > 2 as the cut-off condition for these datasets are not well described for general authors. If authors could revise these points, that would help a lot to initiate this type of bioinformatics stroke research very soon.


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION OF HUB GENES AND SMALL-MOLECULE COMPOUNDS RELATED TO INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE WITH BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: This manuscript presents interesting findings that are timely given the interest in post-ICH secondary injury, including inflammatory injury.  However, the findings are somewhat limited in originality given the use of an existing gene expression dataset that has already been published, albeit using different analytical methodology.

While a prior publication from these publicly available data is cited, there is no discussion about the findings from this published manuscript or other potential manuscripts from these publicly available data.  The authors should make more clear how their currently submitted work improves upon the previous publication.
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: The manuscript seems to be missing any discussion of strengths and limitations.

There should be more discussion about the use of post-mortem brain tissue and the potential limitations for this methodology (e.g. what gene expression changes might occur in brain tissue in general just because it has been ischemic from death for up to 5 hours?  Can any further information regarding this be provided?)

The substance that is being tested (e.g. brain tissue or peripheral blood) should be made more clear in the abstract

The statistical parameters for determining the differentially expressed genes should be made more clear in the abstract

The description of "we used online tools to perform GO enrichment and KEGG analyses" needs more explanation.  What online tools? Subsequently, the description of DAVID and KOBAS is somewhat confusing, including the use of "its" following these terms.  Does "its" apply to one of these tools or both?

For lines 123 and 168, the samples should not be described as "normal."  They are actually contralateral brain samples from a patient with ICH, right? There may be changes even in this area just by the systemic effects of ICH, so it is not accurate to say that they are normal.

Statements that are made in the discussion should be more clear regarding what evidence is from ICH vs other disease processes, such as in line 202 to 203 when a number of papers are cited, and described as validating the currently submitted paper's findings, but none of those citations are from ICH studies.

Lines 224 to 227 are too general and seem inaccurate, including descriptions of "nerve damage" and " KEGG analysis is clearly involved in triggering the 226 regulatory pathway of brain injury."


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION OF HUB GENES AND SMALL-MOLECULE COMPOUNDS RELATED TO INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE WITH BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Citation is inappropriate at more than one part, for example, line 77-78, "The gene expression profiles of ICH patients were obtained from the GEO database (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov / geo) (Guo et al. 2017), public database for researchers." but Guo2017 is not for GEO database. Also, line 88, Chen2016 is not for limma package (citation("limma") gives Ritchie2015).

Grammar; clumsy at several parts
Experimental design: Several unclear descriptions can be found. In line 87-88 " The data were normalized, and the DEGs were screened using the limma package in the R language (version 3.5.1) (Chen et al. 2016)." Who did normaliziation? If the authors did it, clarify the method.
Validity of the findings: Results seem to be fine in the context of applying publicly available tools.
Additional comments: Liu et al. downloaded expression data from GEO database and applied downloadable publicly available analysis software. The general concern is the lack of replication/validation effort for the analysis result.

Also, most of the molecules listed in Table 5 are quite unlikely to contribute to ICH treatment, which might be due to the lack of replication.

Iff the author collects their own biological materials for statistical validation, or try biological confirmation of the findings, such work would be considered for publication.


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION OF HUB GENES AND SMALL-MOLECULE COMPOUNDS RELATED TO INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE WITH BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: REVIEW For PeerJ #36749R1
July 24, 2019
General comments;
In this version of manuscript, authors revised the text. Now authors have appropriately responded to my questions and further upgraded the paper quality for easy understanding.
Experimental design: I think this paper has  been appropriately designed.
Validity of the findings: None.
Additional comments: REVIEW For PeerJ #36749R1
July 24, 2019
General comments;
In this version of manuscript, authors revised the text. Now authors have appropriately responded to my questions and further upgraded the paper quality for easy understanding.


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION OF HUB GENES AND SMALL-MOLECULE COMPOUNDS RELATED TO INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE WITH BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See comments
Experimental design: See comments
Validity of the findings: See comments
Additional comments: I continue to have the following concerns:

The authors did not address strengths and limitations of the study as I recommended in the first set of reviewer comments.

The manuscript is very confusing in that terms are used such as "gene mutations" and genetic abberations" and yet this is a study of microarray analysis for GENE EXPRESSION, not GWAS or DNA sequencing for DNA mutations.  The terminology used needs to be more accurate and consistent throughout the manuscript.

The conclusion of the abstract is too general for the reader to actually take away conclusions related to the main results.

The authors add the rat model to the methods and results as separate sections, but there is no integration of those animal model findings with the human data in the abstract or the discussion or conclusion of the manuscript.

I do not understand this statement in the discussion:  "The remaining analytical results are not described, and the accuracy of our results can be further verified by the prior reports."

The authors did not actually include information (i.e. main findings) from other manuscript(s) published using this publicly available dataset (i.e. Rosell et al), as I recommended in the first reviewer comment.

The authors should include that the timing from ICH onset to sample collection was within 4 days. They should also include that there were 2 women and 2 men and the ages.  This information is easily found on the NCBI website about GSE24265.


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION OF HUB GENES AND SMALL-MOLECULE COMPOUNDS RELATED TO INTRACEREBRAL HEMORRHAGE WITH BIOINFORMATICS ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Re-submitted manuscript must have tracks of the changes made in the manuscript.

The grammar has been improved.
Experimental design: I'm not an expert in this aspect (mouse experiment)
Validity of the findings: This reviewer appreciates the efforts of the authors to validate their bioinformatics results.
Additional comments: In the original manuscript, the authors selected 67 DEGs with P < 0.05 and logFC > 2 without any validation of this analysis result. Note that the family-wise error rate of this analysis is  1-(1-0.05)^M where M would be ~20000 genes or so. So this is only regarded as a narrative data, without any statistical inference. Then the authors did GO or pathway enrichment analysis, constructed PPI network, or performed CMap analysis using these 67 genes. Similarly, these are narrative data without scientific validity (unless other types of statistical evidence, such as Bayesian, are stated).

In this re-submission, the authors did validation analysis using mouse model for 10 PPI-hub genes and successfully validated that these are ICH-related DEGs.

Now this reviewer is largely satisfied with their claim that these 10 genes are ICH-related DEGs. Then, GO, pathway and CMap analyses should be done with these 10 genes, not the non-validated 67 DEGs as a whole.


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: STRATEGIES OF ELITE CHINESE GYMNASTS IN COPING WITH LANDING IMPACT FROM BACKWARD SOMERSAULT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a descriptive study about landing after a backward somersault assessed in 6 international level gymnasts. It is an interesting subject and challenging to assess.

Although I'm also not a native English speaker, the text has serious issues regarding the language. It was really hard to read and in many cases hard to understand what is meant. Since my comprehension of this manuscript is very low in its current form, it does not allow me to fully judge its contents, especially regarding its scientific aspect.

Apart from the above authors the authors make a new review of the literature in the introduction, but this does not converge to the subject of the study. There are serious concerns regarding the rational of the study, and there is no clear justification of the scientific approach followed by the authors. Although I understand that this is mainly a descriptive study, the authors should try to build some basic hypothesis, based on the current findings.
Experimental design: The research question is not clearly described and not connected with the conclusions.
For example, the last sentence of the introduction states that "knowledge from this study would be used for the identification and selection of potential young gymnast athletes". How? The last sentence of the conclusions reads "Knowledge from this study would be used for the identification and selection of potential young gymnast athletes". How?

Reading the methods it is very hard to reproduce this experiment, due to language issues but not only (especially regarding the simulation).
It is not clear what was the scope of the simulation. There is no clear connection of this approach in the introduction and conclusions.
There is no description of the statistics.
Validity of the findings: There are many concerns - that I cannot cite all of them - regarding the validity of the findings.
It is not clear in the figures whether the presented data are from a single subject or from all subjects.
Even in Figure 6 it is not clear whether this is one trial or the average from more. What does the left and right column of figures represent?
There are many times that words like "approximately',''slightly", "tend", "similar" etc.. Although such words are not forbidden in the context of science, overusing them makes the data weak and the conclusions subjective.
Additional comments: Having many reservations about the content of the study due to the used English language, this study should be better presented, in the context of building a better rational and concluding to findings that are related to the introduction (give answers to open questions).


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: STRATEGIES OF ELITE CHINESE GYMNASTS IN COPING WITH LANDING IMPACT FROM BACKWARD SOMERSAULT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: BASIC REPORTING
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript entitled, “Strategies of elite Chinese gymnasts in coping with landing impact from backward somersault.” It was a great pleasure for me to read a paper focussing on gymnastics biomechanics and landing strategies. While I very much enjoyed the topic, I do have some concerns about some of your methods and also strongly believe that this manuscript can be significantly improved in terms of your English sentence structure and grammar. Below are my specific comments and recommendations.

Abstract:
Line 33-34: This sentence doesn’t add much to the abstract. How would this information be used for identification and selection of young gymnasts? I’m not sure how by identifying young gymnasts who use this landing technique would then transfer into these gymnasts being more successful than others that don’t use this technique. I think this research might be more useful for injury prevention, rather than talent identification.

Introduction:
In your introduction you introduce the importance of landing in gymnastics and the high loads associated with landings and that a routine always ends with a landing. While this is correct, this is mostly describing dismount landings, which are different from skill based landing as dismounts generally take place from a height (not from the ground level). I’m just not sure you have adequately justified why you investigated the standing back somersault, when you have described the potential for injury when performing dismount landings. Also, because a standing back somersault is a very basic skill, elite level gymnasts would only perform this type of skill during warm-up activities. Can you please re-work this introduction to provide more justification as to why you chose to investigate the back somersault skill?
Line 44: Add a space between body weight and (BW)
Line 49: Might be worthwhile adding in what FIG considers to be excessive knee flexion here. Then you can compare your results to what FIG considers as ideal later in your discussion. It will just add a bit more depth and context to your findings.
Line 55: I believe there has been a number of studies that have demonstrated the relationship between stiffness and injuries. Maybe another example, more closely related to gymnastics (jumping or landing) would be beneficial here.
Line 57-60: These are really good points. Please consider re-wording to just be a little clearer how there could affect landing strategies, because you really only just state them here. A bit more detail might be beneficial.
Line 61-69: Some great points raised in here, well done!
Line 68: Fix reference here, there is an extra space after the first bracket
Line 72-73: Fix reference here, Caine et al., 2003 is not in blue like the rest of the references
Line 73-74: So some included international/national level gymnasts or were they all collegiate and young gymnasts? The phrasing of this sentence is confusing, please make this line clearer.
Line 78: The use of “What else,” Is not really scientific writing, please consider changing
Line 89: Try to avoid the use of “we,” when writing scientifically
Line 92-93: This line doesn’t add anything to the introduction. If you wanted to keep this in, you would need to add more information as to how that could be used, but I would just consider removing.

Methods:
Line 96: Is a sample size of six big enough to allow for conclusive results? Did you conduct a power analysis?
Line 99: Remove capitalisation of “All” in the middle of a sentence.
Line 106-109: Is this a standard marker model? If so please refer to the model. And if not, more detail is needed about the exact location of where those markers were placed is needed.
Line 110-111: Was the mat over the force plate attached to adjoining mats, or was the mat over the force plate separate from mats in surrounding areas? If the mat over the force plate was joined to surrounding mats, then some of the force upon landing would have been distributed to the adjoining mats and would result in a reduction the GRF. Please state whether or not the mats were joined and the dimensions of the landing mat.
Line 110: Did you only analyse vGRF? Because of the rotational nature of the back somersault, it is unlikely that upon landing all the force took place in the vertical direction. Did you take into account the anterior-posterior GRF or medial-lateral GRF when creating your model, or only vGRF?
Line 122-123: So you only used one trail for each participant? Is there a reason you didn’t use all three? This could have increased the number of trials you had, which could have been beneficial considering you had a very small sample size (only six participants)
Line 125-130: How did you pick these filter cut-offs? Is there a reason why they were different?
Line 141: Avoid starting a sentence with “we”
Line 141-143: So only one trial was used for modelling and simulation? Is there a reason you didn’t use more trials? Can you be certain in your results if it is from only one trial from one participant?
Line 148: Is the mat model used similar to what was used in the actual data collection? Was the mat that they landed on over the force plate 2m x2m in size? Wouldn’t this affect results if the mat is not similar (force more dispersed on landing)?
Did any statistical analysis take place? This should be reported in the methods section.

Results:
Line 157-164: Are these results from the model simulation? Maybe just make this clearer.
Line 168-169: Please explain why a difference of 4.6% is considered good.
Discussion:
Line 182: This is out of place here, considering talking about this further into the discussion in much greater detail. Please cover how does this information enhance our understanding of gymnastics landings and how can this information be used?
Line 184-187: Great points!
Line 194-197: This line seems a bit repetitive, consider re-wording.
Line 203-205: Consider re-wording, this sentence is a bit confusing to follow.
Line 207-210 Consider merging these sentences, as they are very similar.
Line 215-217: Also they were performing very different tasks. In McNitt-Gray’s study, gymnasts were performing drop landings from different height, and in this study were performing standing back somersaults.
Line 226-228: Good point!
Line 229-231: You first state that in T2 the gymnasts actively extended their lower extremity joints, then in the next sentence say they flexed their joints during this phase. Can you please make this clearer?
Line 232-233: Could actually discuss the FIG joint flexion requirements here. What are they and did your participants meet them?
Line 234: “the EMG of lower extremity muscles still remained a higher level of activation,” compared to what?
Line 236-238: This is a really interesting point that requires more detail and discussion. This one of the main findings of your paper, so please explain this in greater detail.
I would consider adding in a paragraph about how the findings from you study can be utilised. What does this add to the current literature and how can these results be used in gymnastics?

Conclusions:
Line 261: This does not add anything to the conclusion. It is also the same sentence you have used word for word earlier in the manuscript. I would consider addressing how these findings can be used in a paragraph in the discussion, as suggested above.
Figures:
Figure 1 is a bit pixelated, is it possible to get a clearer version of this image?
Are Figure 3, 4, 5 & 6 from only one participant or mean values?
Experimental design: There a few things with require further justification or clarification in regards to your experimental design.
1.	Why did you choose to investigate only the back somersault skill? I understand it is a foundation gymnastics skill, but elite gymnasts would only perform this skill in warm-up activities. Further justification is needed.
2.	How did you determine the filter cut-offs you used for your data? Did you perform some kind of test to determine the optimal cut-off frequencies for your data set (i.e. residual analysis)?
3.	You study had a very small sample size, which I understand can be difficult when working with elite athletes. However, you only used one trial per participant for analysis, and only one trial for the modelling. Why did you not use all available trials you collected, instead of the best trial of three?
4.	Further clarification is required on the matting used during the data collection. Dimensions of the mat need to be reported and please state whether the mat placed over the FP was connected to surrounding mats as this would all impact the results.
5.	Can you please provide further clarification as to why you only investigated vGRF and not GRF in all directions? Also, why did you only use vGRF for your modelling?
6.	No statistical analysis was reported in the methods, please add this in.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: STRATEGIES OF ELITE CHINESE GYMNASTS IN COPING WITH LANDING IMPACT FROM BACKWARD SOMERSAULT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment' if you have nothing to add.
Experimental design: No comment' if you have nothing to add.
Validity of the findings: No comment' if you have nothing to add.
Additional comments: In my opinion, I think in the technical execution of the backward somersault very important:
1) Correct specification of the backward somersault phasic structure:
- preparation phase - start position (launching position);
- base phase, multiplication body posture, maximum height of COM
- final phase - landing (final posture) with the two phases (initial and final).
2) Presentation of the work of arms and shoulders.
3) Angular velocity between segments, regarding the relationship between toes, knee, shoulders and arms with the COM (hip) axis of rotation.
4) Practical application and recommendation: I do not think there is a link between backward somersault landing and various acrobatic lines landing of different difficulty (tucked, picked and stretched, double back somersault – tucked, pike and tucked with 360° twist).


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: STRATEGIES OF ELITE CHINESE GYMNASTS IN COPING WITH LANDING IMPACT FROM BACKWARD SOMERSAULT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The language of this manuscript has been significantly improved throughout. It is now much clearer and easier to follow as a reader. There are only a few sentences that could benefit from a bit more editing (lines 55-58, 87-89, and 146-147). The revised introduction now discusses more relevant background literature which builds a more robust justification for your study. The addition of a hypothesis also strengthens your paper. Figures have been improved and now include much more detailed figure captions.
Experimental design: The research question has been well justified and clearly stated. The methods section has also been improved to clear up any ambiguous wording, now making it much easier for the reader to understand exactly what procedures and equipment was used. Thank you for adding in additional information about your marker set, statistical analysis and the simulation software.
Validity of the findings: Discussion of the results has been significantly improved. It is well-structured and follows a logical train of thought and links the current results to relevant literature. I particularly liked the addition of the paragraph from line 251-258 discussing how this information could be used to assist with injury prevention. Information on the practical implications of the research is very important, so it was good to see this included. The conclusions are appropriate and adequately summarise the key findings of the study.
Additional comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript again, as this manuscript has been significantly improved since the last version. The authors appear to have taken on all comments and suggestions from the reviewers and as a result now have a much stronger and more robust manuscript. Well done!


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: COMBINED EFFECT OF THE ENTOMOPATHOGENIC FUNGUS METARHIZIUM ROBERTSII AND AVERMECTINS ON THE SURVIVAL AND IMMUNE RESPONSE OF AEDES AEGYPTI LARVAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English is clear, but there is a profusion of unnecessary acronyms. Stick to general acronyms (like GST) not unusual ones like EPF- just write out entomopathogenic  fungi. The amount of acronyms actually makes it harder to read, rather than simplifying it.
Experimental design: The design is fine, but there are issues in the reporting. Please see annotated PDF to highlight the portions where lack of information prevents replication. An important note is that the authors talk about activity in the haemolymph, but nowhere was haemolymph specifically prepared.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Generally a well written paper covering a novel topic. The reason for my decision is based largely on the fact that I want the figures changed from box and whisker plots to bar graphs, which moves it from the realm of minor to major revision. Otherwise, a worthwhile MS.


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: COMBINED EFFECT OF THE ENTOMOPATHOGENIC FUNGUS METARHIZIUM ROBERTSII AND AVERMECTINS ON THE SURVIVAL AND IMMUNE RESPONSE OF AEDES AEGYPTI LARVAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is interesting and relevant. It is well structured and coherent. However, a minor changes should be addressed before its publication.
1.- Please write the genera Metarhizium always in italics! Idem with other genera or species.
2.- The first time that name an insect or microorganism, please include the author.
3.- Line 135. Replace "3rd" by "Third" because it is in the beginning of sentence.
4.- Please explain what is a "systemic colonization of Ae. aegypti". What do you mean exactly?
5.- Line 386. Replace "Alkhaibar" by "Alkhaibari"
6.- References: check insects or organisms in italics.
7.- Asterisks are not found in figure 1.
Experimental design: The experiments has been well designed and conducted, but a statistical point need to be reconsidered.
8.- "LC50" vs. "MST". Median lethal time: In a time-dependent biological assay procedure, this is the period of exposure to a pathogenic (including toxicological) stimulus which will produce death in half the test subjects. The length of exposure is a direct measure of dosage, and an increase in the period of exposure results in an increase in uptake and true dose in the same ratio. Its symbol is LT50, not to be confused with the Median Survival Time....which is the time at which death occurs in half the test subjects after exposure to a pathogenic (including toxicological) stimulus. Its symbol is MST less commonly ST50, it is not a direct measure of dosage, and it is not to be confused with the Median Lethal Time (LT50), which is a direct measure of dosage. —from An Abridged Glossary of Terms Used in Invertebrate Pathology, Third Edition). Please check this point, I think that the authors have calculated the MST.
Validity of the findings: Results match expectation but some sentences should be avoid, in particular those that report trends or tendencies (lines 288, 296, 311, 329, 354).
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: COMBINED EFFECT OF THE ENTOMOPATHOGENIC FUNGUS METARHIZIUM ROBERTSII AND AVERMECTINS ON THE SURVIVAL AND IMMUNE RESPONSE OF AEDES AEGYPTI LARVAE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written and well referenced and meets peerj standards. However, the authors in the abstract (line no 34) state, "we assume...." while it is their finding that they are stating after getting the results.

Further in line no. 115-117 where the authors end the introduction stating the aims of their study, the portion is to be rewritten with reference given to the citation Bishoff et al with year .
Experimental design: The authors have studied and reported their findings on the synergistic effect of Metarhizium robertsii and avermectins on the survival and immune response A. aegypti larvae, both which effects have been separately studied by other authors. The experimental methods are described adequately for replication.However the references to the methods adopted in finding total larval body supernatant (Line no. 156-162) and acid protease (line no 204-210)  have not been given, which the authors may be asked to add.
Validity of the findings: The data sets provided and results obtained are adequate.However The data relating to 24 hours post treatment stages of toxicosis have not been provided.
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: IMPROVEMENT OF GROWTH AND BACOSIDE PRODUCTION IN BACOPA MONNIERI THROUGH INDUCED AUTOTETRAPLOIDY WITH COLCHICINE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written in a clear and unambiguous, professional English.
Although the standard structure was not used, the presented structure improves paper understanding. Figures and tables are clear.
Authors provided enough introduction and background; nevertheless, the aim was not answered. According with authors “… this study aimed to use an efficient method for inducing tetraploid in brahmi, ...”, however the methodology efficiency was not correctly tested. Authors should present a total induction rate or an equivalent measure. The selecting of “putative autotetraploid clones (…) based on criteria of bigger and thicker leaves and stems as compared to diploid plantlets” biasing the induction rate, not having a correct quantification of the efficiency of the methodology. Authors should analyze a random set of plantlets including all the types of phenotypes to calculate a correct induction rate and consequently the methodology efficiency. Authors need to improve the data to answer to this specific aim.
Experimental design: The submission describes an original research with high importance for the filing the identified knowledge gap. Although the research question is clear exposed, the experimental design is not adjusted to the first part of the aim, as exposed above. Therefore, I must decline to handle the manuscript.
Validity of the findings: Statistical approach should be improved upon. The two factors (colchicine concentration and exposure time) need to be tested for interaction between them. I suggested use, for example, a GLMM to test this and according with the result decide the next step.
Authors made a series of erroneous assumptions based on the incorrect approach used to quantify the technic efficiency, and thus they cannot conclude that “Most autotetraploid plants were superior in agricultural characteristics (such as fresh weight, dry weight and total bacoside content) than the original parental diploid plants” once they did not include in the analyses the possible presence of autotetraploids with similar morphology than diploids plantlets.
Additional comments: Nonetheless, I encourage authors to improve the manuscript and submit the article to another 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: IMPROVEMENT OF GROWTH AND BACOSIDE PRODUCTION IN BACOPA MONNIERI THROUGH INDUCED AUTOTETRAPLOIDY WITH COLCHICINE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The background provided is relevant to the research problems/issues in the study. Most of the literature references are up-to-date or recent publications related to the issues addressed in the study. However, more details information needed, especially about the bacoside and its biosynthetic pathway.

Tables and figures are clear in general and relevant to the content of the article, of sufficient resolution, and appropriately described and labelled.

There are some minor languages and typographical errors found throughout the manuscript. Please refer to the revised manuscript (highlighted in red colour) for further improvement.
Experimental design: The research justification and objectives are clearly stated and discussed with reference to the related literature.

The methods described are commonly used in polyploidization study with colchicine. However, I suggest the authors improve the description of in vitro regenerant screening (line 92-104) by including chromosome counting method besides flow cytometry in determining the polyploid plants. In addition, the description of the histological study (see Fig. 4b&c) should also be included (line 105-110).
Validity of the findings: The data are analyzed correctly and interpreted in accordance with the objectives of the research.

The HPLC data are good, but the sample size might be small, as only half of the identified polyploid analysed, i.e. 14 out of 28 polyploids. The authors might consider providing a clear justification for the limited sample size used in the HPLC analysis.

Overall, the discussion of the research findings could be strengthened by giving more facts or examples from other related studies. For instance, how do colchicine-induced phenotypic changes as observed and reported in the manuscript? Likewise for bacoside content in polyploid plants.
Additional comments: This is one of the important studies that highlighting the use of colchicine in the production of autotetraploids in a medicinal herb, Bacopa monnieri. The authors had successfully identified 28 autotetraploids out of 326 tested clones. Undoubtley, this involves great efforts and resources by the authors. With some moderate changes, as stated above, I believe this manuscript is relevant and may contribute to filling the knowledge gap of polyploidization with colchicine.


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: IMPROVEMENT OF GROWTH AND BACOSIDE PRODUCTION IN BACOPA MONNIERI THROUGH INDUCED AUTOTETRAPLOIDY WITH COLCHICINE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is in accordance with the journal requirements, with introduction and background sustained by the bibliography and clear figures and tables.
However, there are some minor typographical errors:
- in the expression "2x" and "4x", the "x" should be in italic. All manuscript included figures and legends should be reviewed and corrected;
- lines 219 and 222 - "Populus" should be in italic;
- lines 221 and 224 - "et al." missing comma after period.
Experimental design: The new formulated objective is clear tested using current methodology on polyploids detection (according with bibliographic information for the studied species). However, I suggest the inclusion of a citation in line 107 to support the use of indirect identification of polyploid in early stages using morphological traits. For example, in Escandón et al. (2006), the authors observed statistical differences  between diploids and synthetic tetraploids of B. monnieri in some morphological traits using also in this study.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: This study highlights the importance to include polyploid induction methodologies to improve the potential of some medicinal plants. The authors correctly justified the reviewers' comments, increasing the manuscript quality.


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: IMPROVEMENT OF GROWTH AND BACOSIDE PRODUCTION IN BACOPA MONNIERI THROUGH INDUCED AUTOTETRAPLOIDY WITH COLCHICINE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments given earlier.
Experimental design: The authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments given earlier.
Validity of the findings: The authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments given earlier.
Additional comments: The authors have revised the manuscript in accordance with the comments given earlier. However, there are some minor changes, as highlighted in red fonts.


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH TRENDS CONCERNING APPLICATION OF STENT IMPLANTATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PANCREATIC DISEASES BY QUANTITATIVE AND BICLUSTERING ANALYSIS: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) The authors are using the 'Mature Research' term for the characterization of their clusters. Is it a commonly used term? In case if it is so, it is necessary to provide references on some other works related to its application. Otherwise, it is needed to substantiate in more detail the possibility of using this criterion to classify research areas according to their maturity.

2) In the paper on the lines 157-159, the authors are saying: "The first article was published in 1977. As time went by, the volume of publications increased year by year. By 2015, it had a downward trend." At the same time, the conclusion in the abstract is: "In our study, we found 8 topics concerning the application of stent implantation in the treatment of pancreatic diseases. And how to reduce the incidence of postoperative complications and improve the prognosis of patients with pancreatic diseases by stent implantation could become potential hotspots in the future research."

How can the authors comment that despite the falling interest of researchers to the "application of stents in pancreatic diseases," the identified research directions in this area can be considered as potential hotspots in future?

3) It is necessary to provide a more detailed description in the article of how exactly the information, obtained based on the analysis of the reconstructed social network of authors, was used in the cluster analysis to assess the maturity of research areas and identification of the hot spots.

3) The list of provided Mesh terms is unreadable in Figures 2 and 3.

4) The numbering of clusters is missing in Figure 4.

5) The English language should be improved.
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: IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH TRENDS CONCERNING APPLICATION OF STENT IMPLANTATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PANCREATIC DISEASES BY QUANTITATIVE AND BICLUSTERING ANALYSIS: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript provides information about the research hotspots in the area of stent implantation in the management of pancreatic disorders based on relevant PubMed publications using a bibliometric analysis by co-word analysis with visualization and strategic diagram of the main areas of interest. The article is original and acceptable in its current form after minor changes in respect to gramma. No plagiarism was observed and no part of this paper was published elsewhere. The abstract summarizes well the content of the article.The reference list is sufficient and contains 43 papers.
Experimental design: The introduction reveals the problem with pancreatic stent implantation and the usefulness of bibliometric methods and co-word analysis. The aims of the paper are clear and meet the discussion of the body text. The research methods are well explained.
Validity of the findings: The results and discussion are carried out in a satisfactory manner with good visualization.
Using Bibliographic Item Co-Occurrence Matrix Builder and biclustering analysis, the authors revealed the countries and journals, contributing mostly for the research investigations through largest number of publications in the discussed area. The authors managed to find 8 topics concerning the application of stent implantation in the treatment of pancreatic diseases, of which the complications of stent placement in bile duct neoplasms and pancreatic neoplasms and stents for the prevention of pancreatic fistula following pancreaticoduodenectomy are current research center and hot topics for pancreatic stents. The conclusion supports the presented research.
Additional comments: The full name of the abbreviation MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) should appear when it is first mentioned in the abstract and line 102.
Two of the discussed areas of interest according to post-ERCP pancreatitis and stent’s complication, namely ''Prophylactic pancreatic duct stent can reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP)'' and ''Complications such as pancreatitis associated with stent implantation'' consist of overlapping information. However, those two focuses might become one.
As the statement (Line 346) that “patients with endoscopy pancreatic pseudocyst drainage had no recurrence of pseudocyst during follow-up” is observed by Varadarajulu et al., it would be more appropriate either to mentioned the name of the author within the text, or to conclude that patients with endoscopy pancreatic pseudocyst drainage experience rarely recurrence of pseudocyst during follow-up.
Spelling might be corrected on few locations:
Line 107: Publication trends were (instead of “was” as it is in the maniscript)
Line 110: was an original article (instead of articles)
Line 160: [MeSH] instead of [mesh]
Line 232: Cluster 5 is (instead of are)
Line 233: indicating that it has (instead of "they have")
Line 251: the volume of relevant publications was (instead of ''were'')
Line 254: suggests that (instead of suggesting)
Line 256: The United States, Japan and Germany remain (instead of ''remains'')
Line 264: Gastrointestinal endoscopy (instead of ''gastrointestinal'')
Line 289: drainage for patients with pancreatic neoplasms (instead of ''in pancreatic neoplasms'')
Line 306: for patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (instead of ''patients in hilar..'')
Line 320: As a most common complication (instead of ''complications'')
Line 324: after ERCP in high risk patients (instead of ''after ERCP patients in high risk'')
Line 337: an effective mean (instead of ''an effective means'')


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH TRENDS CONCERNING APPLICATION OF STENT IMPLANTATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PANCREATIC DISEASES BY QUANTITATIVE AND BICLUSTERING ANALYSIS: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: - Language should be improved. There are some grammatical errors and typos, i.e.:
     + ... Publications on the application of stents in pancreatic diseases was retrieved from PubMed ...
     + ... the covered metal stents reduces the incidence of ...
     + ... If a paper concerning application of stents in pancreatic diseases was an original articles, ...
     + ... Publication trends was retrieved from GoPubMed ...
     + ...
- References are weak. There is a need to provide and discuss more related works.
- Figures are not clear and transparent. For example, I cannot read the text in Fig. 1, 2, 3.
- The authors should provide more description in their figure's legends.
- In Fig. 5, the network is confusing. I cannot catch the idea here. It needs to be shown clearly.
- The authors should use footnotes to explain the values in their tables.
Experimental design: - The authors retrieved data on May 15th, 2018, however, what is the idea of the field "2018/03/26" [PDAT]?
- To mention the PubMed database, the authors should say that it has been used to retrieve data in some of the biomedical research, such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2019.05.016 and https://doi.org/10.1007/s00438-019-01570-y.
- "MeSH" abbreviation has not been defined in the first use.
Validity of the findings: - In Table 1, what are the difference between the values in "Percentage, %" column and the percentage in "Frequency n (%)" column? If not, it is redundancy.
- One of the most concerns is the low distributions of the values. It makes this paper become less contribution and cannot conclude a lot of things. For example, in Table 1, 2, 3, the percentage values of <1% cannot be considered as high frequency. The authors listed some of the topmost values, but they are still too low to make a difference.
- How to select the significant level of the results in Table 1, 2, 3? For example, how did the authors select the cut-off point in these tables? There is a need to have a statistical test for that, i.e. to show the p-value, which has been applied in the previous publications: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-016-1163-x and https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219720019500057.
- Table 4 is useless. It did not say anything because everything has been mentioned in the previous table.
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: IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH TRENDS CONCERNING APPLICATION OF STENT IMPLANTATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PANCREATIC DISEASES BY QUANTITATIVE AND BICLUSTERING ANALYSIS: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH TRENDS CONCERNING APPLICATION OF STENT IMPLANTATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PANCREATIC DISEASES BY QUANTITATIVE AND BICLUSTERING ANALYSIS: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: My previous comments have been addressed.


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: EFFICIENT SAMPLING OF SHIITAKE-INOCULATED OAK LOGS TO DETERMINE THE LOG-TO-MUSHROOM TRANSFER FACTOR OF STABLE CESIUM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is written in clear standard English. I urge the authors to switch the notation of nuclides such as Cs-133 (the old type-writer notation) to 133Cs (superscripted 133). This refers to the text and the figures and tables! Also, it is not good style to start a sentence with a chemical symbol, such as in L 42.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined and original. The authors used apt methods to answer the research question. Results may be repeated based on their description.

L 160 ff. Could the authors comment on the QC procedures they applied during analysis, please?
Validity of the findings: Data are presented and discussed in a convincing fashion. For further comments, see below:
Additional comments: L 59. What is the regulatory limit for dried mushrooms?
L103. The latin name should appear upon first appearance in the intriduction
L 105. What is the rationale/justification for the sawdust samples? Are they to represent the integral Cs content across the cross section?
L 129. Is it known how far/how deep the mycelium grows into the log. DOes the 10 cm disk actually represent the mushroom's source of nutrients? I feel there should be some knowledge on this crucial question available in literature.

Speaking of literature:
Reading the paper I had the feeling that the article was not yet sufficiently embedded in the state of knowledge. May I suggest expanding aspects of the literature:

Mechanisms about uptake and applications: DOI.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9826-3
Ectomycorrhizal vs saprophytic mushrooms https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7027-0 and https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0538-5
Dose aspects: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05376-8 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.12.083
As well as current literature on the monitoring of mushrooms in Japan.

L163 like -> likely

L166ff. This sentence does not make any sense. Concentrations were low? I presume the deviation between the analytical results (=concentrations) was low?

L172. Purity of the HNO3, please

L173 w -> W

L174 µl should be µm?

L 177. ppb should no longer be used (µg/kg)

L 219/220: Dry weight has a unit of g/kg?! This sentence is confusing. What was measured? Density?


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: EFFICIENT SAMPLING OF SHIITAKE-INOCULATED OAK LOGS TO DETERMINE THE LOG-TO-MUSHROOM TRANSFER FACTOR OF STABLE CESIUM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clearly written with very good English
Experimental design: Concerns over the sawdust method in the ability to separate material from heartwood, sapwood and bark. This is an essential component of the manuscript and has to be addressed (see comments below and on the manuscript).
Validity of the findings: Given the above criticism the data have been appropriately analyzed and are presented clearly
Additional comments: This is a relevant manuscript in relation to problems of radioactive fallout and particularly concentrates on transfer factors into food items. The manuscript I well written and the English is good.
I have made a few comments on the manuscript itself with the main criticism being lack of detail in the methodology. Unless I have missed a major comment, I cannot see how the collection of sawdust from sawing intact logs can allow the separation of heartwood, sapwood and bark for analysis of Cs content. The discussion of the role of each log component to the accumulation of Cs in the mushrooms is a major part of this manuscript and the methods need to be clearly stated.
Initially in the manuscript, bark was dismissed as a source of Cs for mushrooms. However data suggested that bark may play a more important role as a Cs source. This seems to me to call for a set of experiments where mushrooms are experimentally grown on each log component and Cs transfer measured.
Based on these comments I would suggest the manuscript need some major revision before it could be accepted for publication.


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

Input:
Title: EFFICIENT SAMPLING OF SHIITAKE-INOCULATED OAK LOGS TO DETERMINE THE LOG-TO-MUSHROOM TRANSFER FACTOR OF STABLE CESIUM
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This article, describing a more time efficient sampling of shiitake logs via sawdust sampling, is generally well-written and holds interesting aspects on the time efficient sampling of logs. I am sure, that the shiitake growers will profit of an faster sampling method. The presentation of the Cs-133 concentration in log10 is rather uncommon, especially in stastical evaluation of the results, even though the concentrations are accessible in the Supplementary information. I would strongly recommend using the concentrations without log10 and with that a new statistical evaluation on these values. The biological variances for Cs-133 are clearer seen and the statistics do not seem smoothed.
Experimental design: The experimental design is well thought-out. In the section Cs-133 analyses, I am missing the used standards for Cs analyses and the purity used for the chemicals. I generally think that the use of log10 concentrations even when stated in Data analysis are not practical as biological variances cannot be seen, and the concentrations do not vary so strongly, the data analyses benefits from its use. Furthermore, it hinders the easy comparablibilty with other studies.
Validity of the findings: A faster approach for Cs-133 determination in sawdust from logs is described with 2 new and faster methods and compared with the commonly whole log used method. As stated before, the use of log10 concentration (Table 1) is uncommon, especially the calculation of mean values and standard deviation from log10 values. Preferably use the concentration values. Especially as the transfer factors are calculated with the non-log values. In regards to the log10 values figure 2 does not show any significant differences neither in values nor errors, a presentation of the non-log values would be better, as the concentration do not vary over that many magnitudes.
Please consider revising the statistics for non-log values.
The concentration values in the Supplementary Information further need measurement uncertainties. Furthermore, please only give significant decimal places (Table 1).
In several lines, you underlined, that the new sawdust method is faster than the whole log sampling, please give a value and comparison for the time improvement of the techniques.
Line 247-254 you found significant higher transfer factors for non radioactive cesium than for radiocesium, a possible effect could be the bioavailibility of cesium, whereas stable cesium is found in nature in mostly ionic form the uptake for organisms as potassium analogon is easier. Radiocesium is often also released aerosol bound (steinhauser, JRNC, 2018) or even in glass particles in Fukushima NPP accident (Adachi et. al., Scientific Reports, 2013). Please consider adding to the discussion.
Additional comments: The article shows improvement in sampling and measurement of Cs-133 in shiitake logs with sawdust sampling. The article is well written and the experiment well thought. I would recommend using non-log values for Cs-133 concentrations for comparability and statistics.


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: EFFICIENT SAMPLING OF SHIITAKE-INOCULATED OAK LOGS TO DETERMINE THE LOG-TO-MUSHROOM TRANSFER FACTOR OF STABLE CESIUM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: Authors have addressed my concerns
Validity of the findings: Modifications have clarified interpretation of the results
Additional comments: Authors have satisfactorily addressed the concerns I had with the initial manuscript and their modifications have significantly improved the clarity of 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: EFFICIENT SAMPLING OF SHIITAKE-INOCULATED OAK LOGS TO DETERMINE THE LOG-TO-MUSHROOM TRANSFER FACTOR OF STABLE CESIUM
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised manuscript shows a clear and consistent experimental design and results.
Experimental design: The additional discussion on the time efficiency adds relevant information to the aim and findings of the study.
Validity of the findings: The non log concentration were changed accordingly and gives a better insight on the data set.
Additional comments: I found only some small mistakes in:
L. 168 Cs-133 analyses it should be analysis
L. 178 the unit is still the old one with log10, please change to only µg/kg


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: UNFOLD: AN INTEGRATED TOOLBOX FOR OVERLAP CORRECTION, NON-LINEAR MODELING, AND REGRESSION-BASED EEG ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have openly peer-reviewed an earlier version of this manuscript.
The authors have addressed my remarks, and these are reported in the current paper.
I thus endorse its publication in its present form.
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: UNFOLD: AN INTEGRATED TOOLBOX FOR OVERLAP CORRECTION, NON-LINEAR MODELING, AND REGRESSION-BASED EEG ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript presented a toolbox for a data analysis framework that is more versatile than conventional trial-averaging ERP approach in the sense that heterogeneous overlapping events and complicated effects can be modelled in the framework. Thus, more sophisticated EEG experiments are encouraged, providing the help of this unfold toolbox in the subsequent data analyses.
The author’s endeavour underlying this work is highly appreciated, as well as its potential contribution to future scientific investigations. As mentioned by the author, several tools that have been developed with similar purpose are either difficult to access/use, or not being maintained/further developed. This somehow reflects the challenge in this area: sophistication in the methodologies that are oriented to dealing with complex, closer-to-reality paradigms requires exponentially increasing amount of development and maintenance effort, which hinders its development and user application. The authors have made a great effort in constructing, validating, and facilitating this new data analysis framework of EEG data analysis under complex designs.
I recommend the publication of this work without much reservation. But I do hope my following comments can be addressed. I list all my comments without distinguishing them as major or minor.
- Figure 2: ‘response to A at t=1’, ‘response to A at t=5’, ‘response to B at t=4’, should ‘t’s here be ‘tau’ (the greek letter)?
- line 193: should the subscript ‘t’ after EEG be ‘25’, according to Figure 2? ‘t’ refers to any time point, but not every time point of EEG can be expressed as the right part in line 193, which is a specific case. This also applies to line 194 ‘at time point t’. It should be ‘at time point t = 25’.
- Why is the design matrix named Xdc? What does ‘dc’ stand for?
- line 206, 207: How Xdc is constructed is actually quite essential. I would not suggest to remind readers to skip this part.
- line 259: this comes at the cost of very large (size…). The left parenthesis should pass the word ‘size’.
- line 85, why is Hanke & Halchenko, 2011 cited here?
- line 135, ‘have existing’ -> ‘have existed’
- line 312, 313: “A benefit of using temporal basis functions rather than the simple stick functions is that less unknown parameters need to be estimated.” Is this true if, for example, a full set of Fourier basis is used? In Figure 3 it seems that only a limited frequency band of Fourier basis is used. This is equivalent to low-pass filtering. Thus the reduction of parameter to be estimated is at the sacrifice of losing information. Similar thing can be done by using stick function in down-sampled data.
- line 393, 394: it is particularly necessary to split the model specification into two parts? This is somewhat counter-intuitive, because the second line seems to have overwrite the first line. And since stimulus events and response events do not differentiate each other in the linear model (they are both regressors), it would look more sensible to put them in the same formulation.
- line 429 to 431: the comparison in Figure 6 is somewhat anecdotal. It totally depends on the parameters setting of the basis functions. The major point being delivered here seem to be the filtering effect. The reason why and in what cases basis functions should be considered should be more conceptually explained. For example, one advantage is the computational speed.
- line 445: “The way to handle artifacts in a linear deconvolution model is therefore to detect – but not to remove – the intervals containing artifacts in the continuous dataset”. What is the difference between removing the data and blanking out the data?
- The introduction of regularization may not be very clear to readers. It would be great to concisely introduce the rational/benefit of applying regularization to readers before introducing the implementation. It is stated that “The regularization parameter is automatically estimated using cross-validation.”, but then later “it is not yet clear whether and how much regularization should be used for the standard analysis of EEG data”. Since it can be automatically estimated, why should it be concerned about “how much regularization should be used”? Plus, the results in Figure 7C may be further improved by low-pass filtered (using less splines), which may produce less noisy and also less biased result.
Experimental design: This paper is a toolbox paper, thus commenting on experimental design is not applicable.
Validity of the findings: Again, this paper is a toolbox paper, thus commenting on validity of findings is not applicable.
Additional comments: No additional comments