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: QUALITY OF CARE AND PRESCRIPTION PATTERNS AMONG PATIENTS WITH DIABETIC KIDNEY DISEASE—A LARGE-SCALE COHORT STUDY FROM TAIWANESE CLINICS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript “Quality of care and prescription patterns among patients with diabetic kidney disease - A large-scale cohort study from Taiwanese clinics” investigates the quality of care and prescription patterns, obtained from retrospective chart review of patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) receiving primary care at 43 primary care clinics in Taiwan.
I have minor suggestions to the manuscript.

-	English style needs to be improved
	Discussion should: be more focused on the results.
	Discussion section: These paragraphs reporting the results of the main CVOTs on SGLT2i and GLP1RAs  should be removed/shortened : “ In the DAPA-CKD trial, (including CKD patients with an eGFR of as low as 25 ml/min/1.73m2 252 and a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200 to 5000mg/g creatinine), SGLT-2 inhibitor 253 showed lower risks of renal complications; decline of eGFR, progression to ESRD, and death 254 from renal or cardiovascular causes.(Heerspink et al., 2020) Also, in the CANVAS-R trial, the 255 SGLT-2 inhibitor also demonstrated the capability to slow progression of albuminuria and to 256 reduce renal events in the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular 257 risk.(Neal et al., 2017) In our study, although diabetes patients with DKD were more likely to be 258 prescribed SGLT-2 inhibitors, the proportion of SGLT-2 inhibitors was still less than DPP-4 259 inhibitors and sulfonylurea in monotherapy and dual therapy. It might be possible that SGLT-2 260 inhibitors were only prescribed to patients with eGFR > 45ml/min/1.73m2 when the study was 261 conducted in 2019. However, since then, growing evidence suggests SGLT-2 inhibitors provide 262 cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with advanced CKD. Today, some SGLT-2 263 inhibitors are prescribed to eGFR ≥30ml/min/1.73m2 patients as well. As application criteria 264 changes, SGLT-2 inhibitors may be more applicable and acceptable to more DKD patients.” and “GLP-1 RAs were also recommended to CKD patients for their ability to reduce risks of 267 cardiovascular events, hypoglycemia and possibly slowing CKD progression.(Marso et al., 268 2016a; Marso et al., 2016b) In an exploratory analysis of the REWIND trial, dulaglutide showed 269 a 15% reduction in incidence of composite renal outcome and attenuation of eGFR 270 decline.(Gerstein et al., 2019) The prespecified secondary analysis of the LEADER trial revealed 271 that liraglutide had a lower rate of DKD development and progression.(Mann et al., 2017) 272 However, in our study, prescription of GLP-1 RA did not show significant difference between 273 DKD and non-DKD patients (adjusted OR 1.24; 95% CI [0.95 - 1.61], p = 0.104) and the overall 274 prescription rate was low. The difference may be due to strict reimbursement criteria and 275 patients’ preference for oral medications”.
	You may use a review instead, see :  Greco EV, et al.  GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Kidney Protection. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 May31;55(6):233. doi: 10.3390/medicina55060233. PMID: 31159279; PMCID: PMC6630923. and Bailey, C.J., et al.  Renal Protection with SGLT2 Inhibitors: Effects in Acute and Chronic Kidney Disease. Curr Diab Rep 22, 39–52 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-021-01442-z
	Discussion section: A comment to compare the contemporary use of SGLT2i/GLP1RAs in Taiwan vs that in T2DM from primary and secondary care all over the world should also be included. At this regard, please see Mosenzon, O. et al,  et al. CAPTURE: a multinational, cross-sectional study of cardiovascular disease prevalence in adults with type 2 diabetes across 13 countries. Cardiovasc Diabetol 20, 154 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-021-01344-0.
	Discussion section: Also a brief comment on therapeutic inertia and the potential risks associated with the use of SU in old patients with impaired renal function should also be added.

	Results/Discussion section: An analysis/comment on potential differences in the results based on age and gender could improve the manuscript: at this regard, you may see: Giandalia A. et al. Gender Differences in Diabetic Kidney Disease: Focus on Hormonal, Genetic and Clinical Factors. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 May 28;22(11):5808. doi:10.3390/ijms22115808. PMID: 34071671; PMCID: PMC8198374.
Experimental design: The manuscript “Quality of care and prescription patterns among patients with diabetic kidney disease - A large-scale cohort study from Taiwanese clinics” investigates the quality of care and prescription patterns, obtained from retrospective chart review of patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) receiving primary care at 43 primary care clinics in Taiwan.
I have minor suggestions to the manuscript.

-	English style needs to be improved
	Discussion should: be more focused on the results.
	Discussion section: These paragraphs reporting the results of the main CVOTs on SGLT2i and GLP1RAs  should be removed/shortened : “ In the DAPA-CKD trial, (including CKD patients with an eGFR of as low as 25 ml/min/1.73m2 252 and a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200 to 5000mg/g creatinine), SGLT-2 inhibitor 253 showed lower risks of renal complications; decline of eGFR, progression to ESRD, and death 254 from renal or cardiovascular causes.(Heerspink et al., 2020) Also, in the CANVAS-R trial, the 255 SGLT-2 inhibitor also demonstrated the capability to slow progression of albuminuria and to 256 reduce renal events in the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular 257 risk.(Neal et al., 2017) In our study, although diabetes patients with DKD were more likely to be 258 prescribed SGLT-2 inhibitors, the proportion of SGLT-2 inhibitors was still less than DPP-4 259 inhibitors and sulfonylurea in monotherapy and dual therapy. It might be possible that SGLT-2 260 inhibitors were only prescribed to patients with eGFR > 45ml/min/1.73m2 when the study was 261 conducted in 2019. However, since then, growing evidence suggests SGLT-2 inhibitors provide 262 cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with advanced CKD. Today, some SGLT-2 263 inhibitors are prescribed to eGFR ≥30ml/min/1.73m2 patients as well. As application criteria 264 changes, SGLT-2 inhibitors may be more applicable and acceptable to more DKD patients.” and “GLP-1 RAs were also recommended to CKD patients for their ability to reduce risks of 267 cardiovascular events, hypoglycemia and possibly slowing CKD progression.(Marso et al., 268 2016a; Marso et al., 2016b) In an exploratory analysis of the REWIND trial, dulaglutide showed 269 a 15% reduction in incidence of composite renal outcome and attenuation of eGFR 270 decline.(Gerstein et al., 2019) The prespecified secondary analysis of the LEADER trial revealed 271 that liraglutide had a lower rate of DKD development and progression.(Mann et al., 2017) 272 However, in our study, prescription of GLP-1 RA did not show significant difference between 273 DKD and non-DKD patients (adjusted OR 1.24; 95% CI [0.95 - 1.61], p = 0.104) and the overall 274 prescription rate was low. The difference may be due to strict reimbursement criteria and 275 patients’ preference for oral medications”.
	You may use a review instead, see :  Greco EV, et al.  GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Kidney Protection. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 May31;55(6):233. doi: 10.3390/medicina55060233. PMID: 31159279; PMCID: PMC6630923. and Bailey, C.J., et al.  Renal Protection with SGLT2 Inhibitors: Effects in Acute and Chronic Kidney Disease. Curr Diab Rep 22, 39–52 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-021-01442-z
	Discussion section: A comment to compare the contemporary use of SGLT2i/GLP1RAs in Taiwan vs that in T2DM from primary and secondary care all over the world should also be included. At this regard, please see Mosenzon, O. et al,  et al. CAPTURE: a multinational, cross-sectional study of cardiovascular disease prevalence in adults with type 2 diabetes across 13 countries. Cardiovasc Diabetol 20, 154 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-021-01344-0.
	Discussion section: Also a brief comment on therapeutic inertia and the potential risks associated with the use of SU in old patients with impaired renal function should also be added.

	Results/Discussion section: An analysis/comment on potential differences in the results based on age and gender could improve the manuscript: at this regard, you may see: Giandalia A. et al. Gender Differences in Diabetic Kidney Disease: Focus on Hormonal, Genetic and Clinical Factors. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 May 28;22(11):5808. doi:10.3390/ijms22115808. PMID: 34071671; PMCID: PMC8198374.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript “Quality of care and prescription patterns among patients with diabetic kidney disease - A large-scale cohort study from Taiwanese clinics” investigates the quality of care and prescription patterns, obtained from retrospective chart review of patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) receiving primary care at 43 primary care clinics in Taiwan.
I have minor suggestions to the manuscript.

-	English style needs to be improved
	Discussion should: be more focused on the results.
	Discussion section: These paragraphs reporting the results of the main CVOTs on SGLT2i and GLP1RAs  should be removed/shortened : “ In the DAPA-CKD trial, (including CKD patients with an eGFR of as low as 25 ml/min/1.73m2 252 and a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200 to 5000mg/g creatinine), SGLT-2 inhibitor 253 showed lower risks of renal complications; decline of eGFR, progression to ESRD, and death 254 from renal or cardiovascular causes.(Heerspink et al., 2020) Also, in the CANVAS-R trial, the 255 SGLT-2 inhibitor also demonstrated the capability to slow progression of albuminuria and to 256 reduce renal events in the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular 257 risk.(Neal et al., 2017) In our study, although diabetes patients with DKD were more likely to be 258 prescribed SGLT-2 inhibitors, the proportion of SGLT-2 inhibitors was still less than DPP-4 259 inhibitors and sulfonylurea in monotherapy and dual therapy. It might be possible that SGLT-2 260 inhibitors were only prescribed to patients with eGFR > 45ml/min/1.73m2 when the study was 261 conducted in 2019. However, since then, growing evidence suggests SGLT-2 inhibitors provide 262 cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with advanced CKD. Today, some SGLT-2 263 inhibitors are prescribed to eGFR ≥30ml/min/1.73m2 patients as well. As application criteria 264 changes, SGLT-2 inhibitors may be more applicable and acceptable to more DKD patients.” and “GLP-1 RAs were also recommended to CKD patients for their ability to reduce risks of 267 cardiovascular events, hypoglycemia and possibly slowing CKD progression.(Marso et al., 268 2016a; Marso et al., 2016b) In an exploratory analysis of the REWIND trial, dulaglutide showed 269 a 15% reduction in incidence of composite renal outcome and attenuation of eGFR 270 decline.(Gerstein et al., 2019) The prespecified secondary analysis of the LEADER trial revealed 271 that liraglutide had a lower rate of DKD development and progression.(Mann et al., 2017) 272 However, in our study, prescription of GLP-1 RA did not show significant difference between 273 DKD and non-DKD patients (adjusted OR 1.24; 95% CI [0.95 - 1.61], p = 0.104) and the overall 274 prescription rate was low. The difference may be due to strict reimbursement criteria and 275 patients’ preference for oral medications”.
	You may use a review instead, see :  Greco EV, et al.  GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Kidney Protection. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 May31;55(6):233. doi: 10.3390/medicina55060233. PMID: 31159279; PMCID: PMC6630923. and Bailey, C.J., et al.  Renal Protection with SGLT2 Inhibitors: Effects in Acute and Chronic Kidney Disease. Curr Diab Rep 22, 39–52 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-021-01442-z
	Discussion section: A comment to compare the contemporary use of SGLT2i/GLP1RAs in Taiwan vs that in T2DM from primary and secondary care all over the world should also be included. At this regard, please see Mosenzon, O. et al,  et al. CAPTURE: a multinational, cross-sectional study of cardiovascular disease prevalence in adults with type 2 diabetes across 13 countries. Cardiovasc Diabetol 20, 154 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-021-01344-0.
	Discussion section: Also a brief comment on therapeutic inertia and the potential risks associated with the use of SU in old patients with impaired renal function should also be added.

	Results/Discussion section: An analysis/comment on potential differences in the results based on age and gender could improve the manuscript: at this regard, you may see: Giandalia A. et al. Gender Differences in Diabetic Kidney Disease: Focus on Hormonal, Genetic and Clinical Factors. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 May 28;22(11):5808. doi:10.3390/ijms22115808. PMID: 34071671; PMCID: PMC8198374.
Additional comments: The manuscript “Quality of care and prescription patterns among patients with diabetic kidney disease - A large-scale cohort study from Taiwanese clinics” investigates the quality of care and prescription patterns, obtained from retrospective chart review of patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) receiving primary care at 43 primary care clinics in Taiwan.
I have minor suggestions to the manuscript.

-	English style needs to be improved
	Discussion should: be more focused on the results.
	Discussion section: These paragraphs reporting the results of the main CVOTs on SGLT2i and GLP1RAs  should be removed/shortened : “ In the DAPA-CKD trial, (including CKD patients with an eGFR of as low as 25 ml/min/1.73m2 252 and a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 200 to 5000mg/g creatinine), SGLT-2 inhibitor 253 showed lower risks of renal complications; decline of eGFR, progression to ESRD, and death 254 from renal or cardiovascular causes.(Heerspink et al., 2020) Also, in the CANVAS-R trial, the 255 SGLT-2 inhibitor also demonstrated the capability to slow progression of albuminuria and to 256 reduce renal events in the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular 257 risk.(Neal et al., 2017) In our study, although diabetes patients with DKD were more likely to be 258 prescribed SGLT-2 inhibitors, the proportion of SGLT-2 inhibitors was still less than DPP-4 259 inhibitors and sulfonylurea in monotherapy and dual therapy. It might be possible that SGLT-2 260 inhibitors were only prescribed to patients with eGFR > 45ml/min/1.73m2 when the study was 261 conducted in 2019. However, since then, growing evidence suggests SGLT-2 inhibitors provide 262 cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with advanced CKD. Today, some SGLT-2 263 inhibitors are prescribed to eGFR ≥30ml/min/1.73m2 patients as well. As application criteria 264 changes, SGLT-2 inhibitors may be more applicable and acceptable to more DKD patients.” and “GLP-1 RAs were also recommended to CKD patients for their ability to reduce risks of 267 cardiovascular events, hypoglycemia and possibly slowing CKD progression.(Marso et al., 268 2016a; Marso et al., 2016b) In an exploratory analysis of the REWIND trial, dulaglutide showed 269 a 15% reduction in incidence of composite renal outcome and attenuation of eGFR 270 decline.(Gerstein et al., 2019) The prespecified secondary analysis of the LEADER trial revealed 271 that liraglutide had a lower rate of DKD development and progression.(Mann et al., 2017) 272 However, in our study, prescription of GLP-1 RA did not show significant difference between 273 DKD and non-DKD patients (adjusted OR 1.24; 95% CI [0.95 - 1.61], p = 0.104) and the overall 274 prescription rate was low. The difference may be due to strict reimbursement criteria and 275 patients’ preference for oral medications”.
	You may use a review instead, see :  Greco EV, et al.  GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Kidney Protection. Medicina (Kaunas). 2019 May31;55(6):233. doi: 10.3390/medicina55060233. PMID: 31159279; PMCID: PMC6630923. and Bailey, C.J., et al.  Renal Protection with SGLT2 Inhibitors: Effects in Acute and Chronic Kidney Disease. Curr Diab Rep 22, 39–52 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11892-021-01442-z
	Discussion section: A comment to compare the contemporary use of SGLT2i/GLP1RAs in Taiwan vs that in T2DM from primary and secondary care all over the world should also be included. At this regard, please see Mosenzon, O. et al,  et al. CAPTURE: a multinational, cross-sectional study of cardiovascular disease prevalence in adults with type 2 diabetes across 13 countries. Cardiovasc Diabetol 20, 154 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12933-021-01344-0.
	Discussion section: Also a brief comment on therapeutic inertia and the potential risks associated with the use of SU in old patients with impaired renal function should also be added.

	Results/Discussion section: An analysis/comment on potential differences in the results based on age and gender could improve the manuscript: at this regard, you may see: Giandalia A. et al. Gender Differences in Diabetic Kidney Disease: Focus on Hormonal, Genetic and Clinical Factors. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 May 28;22(11):5808. doi:10.3390/ijms22115808. PMID: 34071671; PMCID: PMC8198374.


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: WEIGHT CHANGE-RELATED FACTORS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: A POPULATION-BASED CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY USING SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Abstract:
In the methodology section of the abstract, indicate the number of sample people, sampling method, statistical method, software and confidence interval.
Introduction:
Do you mean by "weight neutrality" the same as not changing weight?
The contents of the introduction are very complete, good and concise. That this cohesion and integrity is commendable. Only in the part where the theory SCT  is presented, a kind of disconnection is seen. Reinforce this section and enter into the discussion of the need to use a theoretical framework with a broader explanation. And then introduce the theorist of this intellectual framework and explain this framework well.
Introduce the variables derived from the research by mentioning the source explicitly under the heading of each aspect of this phenomenon
Experimental design: Methodology:
Specify the sampling method.
Questionnaires should be explained separately in each paragraph. Mention the validity and reliability of each questionnaire. Determine which of the questionnaires measures each of the cognitive, behavioral and environmental dimensions of this phenomenon?And give a brief explanation of why you chose these questionnaires and not other questionnaires.
Validity of the findings: Results:
How did you come up with the final list of weight change predictors?
Discussion:
Based on the discussion, it seems that according to the research literature, you have considered several variables to be effective in weight changes by default. And you have chosen the questionnaires based on that and finally in the statistical analysis you have examined the variables. You should explain this process. And prepare the reader's mind.
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: WEIGHT CHANGE-RELATED FACTORS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: A POPULATION-BASED CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY USING SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Excellent basic reporting. Clear and concise writing.
Professional and proficient standard of written English that communicated their points and arguments well.
References and background text were well provided
Studies accurately referenced
Experimental design: Yes the primary research is within the aims and scope of journal
Research question is clearly defined and is relevant
Intention is also identified; which is to present a more comprehensive look into the predictors of weight changes during the pandemic

Study design is a simple quantitative cross sectional survey.It would have been more meaningful if it had been a mixed method study with components of qualitative interview or questions. Otherwise method suffices for the the cross sectional study.

Perhaps questions to changes of their eating and sleeping behaviours could be explored too. They had only asked for changes in exercise habits
Validity of the findings: Discussion and conclusion were adequate.
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: WEIGHT CHANGE-RELATED FACTORS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: A POPULATION-BASED CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY USING SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The presented paper is quite interesting and provides inspiration for other researchers to conduct further research. Research reports are submitted in good English writing and are consistent with professional standards of politeness so that they are easy to understand scientifically.
Experimental design: The research carried out is quite identical to the scientific field required by the journal. The literacy used in the literature review assessment can be said to be quite relevant to the objectives of the proposed research. The method is explained in enough detail and is informative to inspire ideas for further research development or models that can be imitated by other researchers.
Validity of the findings: The results of the study are explained in full by including the statistical value of their significance. Supporting data on the research results are presented in detail and clearly.
The discussion is quite specific, targeting the discussion that leads to a comparison of the results obtained from the study compared to other similar studies.
Please improve the way of writing the display in the attached table which is still in closed tabular form. Writing tables according to journal writing guidelines should be written in an open table way.
Attention to table 5 should be displayed in a simpler and more attractive format that focuses on factors that are the focus of attention or are meaningful in discussions and discussions. The same thing is also addressed for table 6 to be summarized so that it is interesting to read.
Additional comments: The title seems unattractive to the reader, it is necessary to add words regarding specific information related to the research.


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

Input:
Title: SUICIDAL IDEATION AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN SOUTH KOREA DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: THE APPLICATION OF INTERPERSONAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY AND EARLY MALADAPTIVE SCHEMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The English used in this research paper is clear and easy to understand. Papers are prepared in polite and technically correct language. The author presents an introductory description that encourages the emergence of research questions. But the basic theory that explains the research concept is not stated. This paper presents an interesting point and seeks to highlight the internal factors that drive suicide in students in South Korea by providing relevant supporting research data. The research data table is clearly presented with an explanatory label, but the presentation does not use an open table. Raw data is shared as a requirement document. The results of the research are shown in the report but without starting with the submission of the hypothesis.
Experimental design: The research conducted is original and relevant to the stated objectives. The research description has explained the gaps from other studies that led to the emergence of this research. The research proposal has passed the ethical review set by the university. The research method was delivered well according to the specified sample size range. The data presented can be explained based on a strong and acceptable scientific field. The various assessment tools used in this study are well explained and easy to understand. The data processing process is presented systematically with a simple delivery.
Validity of the findings: The research is not a replication study. The results of the study produce new findings that can be used as a basis for further research by other researchers. Conclusions are conveyed properly and firmly with conformity that answers the research objectives.
Additional comments: Suggestions for improvement are that researchers can improve the way the data is presented with open table images and add an explanation of the basic theory regarding the contribution of factors behind suicidal behavior in young adults or college students.


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: SUICIDAL IDEATION AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN SOUTH KOREA DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: THE APPLICATION OF INTERPERSONAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY AND EARLY MALADAPTIVE SCHEMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The present study aimed at examined the application of interpersonal-psychological theory and early maladaptive schema of suicide in South Korean university students.
I read the main text of the article but i did not find any innovation in the results. I believe that this paper is not a significant contribution that explains these findings more than previous research has already done. So, I do agree the importance of this topic, but I'm not sure how your added research will accomplish this since the data was already in existence and you did not contribute significantly to adding more information to better manage this difficult situation.
Experimental design: There are also some fundamental methodological flaws in the design, execution, and the analysis of the results. For example, it is unclear whether the study is powered to conduct the number of analyses undertaken. Could the authors provide a power analysis or justify why they conducted their analyses without sufficient power? Calculating the sample size by power analyzing (see Faul et al. 2009, PMID: 19897823) could certainly increase the accuracy of the study.
Validity of the findings: Regardless of the results obtained from the model, it is crucial to emphasize that accurate predictions cannot be guaranteed by cross-sectional study. Rather, development of prediction models is based on cohort study. Thus, prediction models resulting from cross-sectional designs can be misleading.
Additional comments: The format and structure of the manuscript should be improved as is mentioned in the author guideline for manuscript submission.
Finally, I suggest that the manuscript is proofread by a fluent English speaker or Editing service. So please make sure there are no English errors.


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: SUICIDAL IDEATION AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN SOUTH KOREA DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: THE APPLICATION OF INTERPERSONAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY AND EARLY MALADAPTIVE SCHEMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is written in a straightforward manner and is readily understood. The language of the article is appropriate for the subject matter, particularly as the issue of suicide and suicidal ideation may provoke significant distress in some readers.

The references are appropriate and considered. I note the authors have referenced articles that raise concern regarding the risk of an increase in suicide rates during the pandemic.

Areas to address in the paper.

It would be helpful if the authors considered publications that have not found an overall increase but have noted variations related to social and gender issues. Pirkis et al. have published a number of papers in relation to suicide data during the pandemic, with the papers referring to a large number of jurisdictions.
Experimental design: The objective of the study is identified as evaluating the relationship between interpersonal factors and maladaptive schema/Joiner’s theory and suicide.

A point of concern is that, in reality, the study seems to be addressing the issue of suicidal ideation/attempts and its relationship to the measures used in the study. My understanding of the paper is that it is cross-sectional; therefore, it is unknown if any of the students died by suicide; rather, we know if they have experienced ideations or self-harm attempts.

It would be helpful if the authors reviewed this aspect.

However, the study addresses important issues concerning factors relevant to suicidal ideation/attempt and, therefore, the risk of suicide in an at-risk population.

The study design is appropriately explained, as are the data analysis methods.
Validity of the findings: Based on the data and the analysis, the findings are significant and add to our knowledge of risk factors for suicidal ideation/attempts.

Areas to address in the paper.

I note that the students came from a number of different years and groups. While the data related to the years were analysed, it would be helpful to know whether there were differences between the student groups, particularly as line 242 refers specifically to nursing students. Does their data differ from the other student groups?

Of concern in the study is the bias towards females, i.e. they are overrepresented 79% vs 21% (males). This aspect is relevant and should be part of the discussion as female self-harm rates are much greater than male self-harm rates in many countries ( I am unsure if this is different in South Korea), but for most countries, males account for three-quarters of all deaths by suicide. Do the findings of this study address these aspects?
Additional comments: Areas to address in the paper.

My main comments centre on the issue of the impact of the gender bias in the data, which does not appear to be adequately explored, and that the objectives outlined in the paper indicate it is about the relationship between suicide and a number of measured factors assessed by self-report questionnaires. I would suggest that the authors consider discussing it as the relationship between suicidal ideation/attempts, which are risk factors for suicide.

It would be helpful and expand on the paper if the authors provided information regarding any change in suicide rates in South Korea across all age groups and, similarly, if the rates of self-harm presentation to hospitals have varied since COVID-19 impacted South Korea. The impact of the study could be broadened by comparison with other countries apart from the USA.

The authors have succinctly documented the strengths and limitations of the study; however, the gender issues should be included.

I want to thank the authors for the opportunity to review their paper. Their findings are of considerable interest and add to our knowledge of risk factors.

I would be pleased to re-review this paper and consider the authors’ responses.


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: SUICIDAL IDEATION AND SUICIDE ATTEMPTS AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN SOUTH KOREA DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: THE APPLICATION OF INTERPERSONAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY AND EARLY MALADAPTIVE SCHEMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: In my opinion this manuscript has been revised with attention to the reviewers' comments and can now be published.


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: DISTRIBUTION AND PHYLOGEOGRAPHY OF THE GENUS MATTIROLOMYCES WITH A FOCUS ON THE ASIAN M. TERFEZIOIDES HAPLOTYPES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The structure of the article should conform to an acceptable format of ‘standard sections’ (see our Instructions for Authors for our suggested format). Significant departures in structure should be made only if they significantly improve clarity or conform to a discipline-specific custom.

Figures should be relevant to the content of the article, of sufficient resolution, and appropriately described and labeled.
Experimental design: The investigation must have been conducted rigorously and to a high technical standard. The research must have been conducted in conformity with the prevailing ethical standards in the field.
Methods should be described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions should be appropriately stated, should be connected to the original question investigated, and should be limited to those supported by the results. In particular, claims of a causative relationship should be supported by a well-controlled experimental intervention. Correlation is not causation.
Additional comments: I have reviewed the paper about Mattirolomyces, I think it is correct for publication in this journal, but some modifications indicated in the text must be made.
Presents a new hypothesis for the distribution of this rare species of hypogeal Fungus.


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: DISTRIBUTION AND PHYLOGEOGRAPHY OF THE GENUS MATTIROLOMYCES WITH A FOCUS ON THE ASIAN M. TERFEZIOIDES HAPLOTYPES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper discusses the geographic origin and distribution of the genus Mattirolomyces and more precisely M. terfezioides haplotypes based on ecological and phylogenetic data. The phylogeography concept of this species is here discussed in light of new data from a recent collection of M. terfezioides associated with poplar trees in the Inner Mongolia. In particular, this paper suggests that M. terfezioides was originated from the Asian-Pacific areas (Chinese area) prior to frequent long-distance migration events to Europe. It is important to mention that there is a real lack of works on M. terfezioides from the Asian region (only two papers Ka et al. 2015 and Wang et al. 2017). However, while I think that the subject of the paper is interesting, I have several comments and revisions (detailed below) which should be addressed by authors before this manuscript can be reconsidered for publication by PeerJ.

The manuscript needs extensive revision for language by a native English speaker. Some sections need a complete paraphrasing to ease their reading. I made a first overall revision of the paper language and I corrected and added several scientific and technical terms. You will find all those revisions marked in red on the PDF version of the manuscript file enclosed with my revision comments.

Abstract comments:
Line 27: What does authors mean by basal in the sentence:  ….. Other Asian haplotypes were more basal?

Introduction comments:
Line 42: … intriguing geographical distribution: the term intriguing is inappropriate and should be replaced
Lines 43-46: The citations concerning the five Mattirolomyces species need references of their original source papers.
Lines 50-53: This paragraph should be revised; there is no connecting idea between the first sentence “The desert regions… high summer temperatures” and the second one Mattirolomyces spp…since prehistoric times (Trappe et al., 2010)”
Lines 51-53: The meaning of the following sentence: “Mattirolomyces spp.… geographical, botanical, and cultural attributes…prehistoric times (Trappe et al., 2010)” is not clear and need a complete language revision.
Experimental design: The submission define well the research question. However, the Material and methods part lack sufficient information to be reproductible by another investigator.

Material and methods comments:
Lines 102-103: Please precise the number of repetitions which were used for the measurements of asci and spores sizes
Lines 90-92: The meaning of this paragraph is not clear and need to be written differently
The section concerning the determination of soil physical and chemical properties should be moved and placed just after the section Study site and sampling.
Lines 109-111: Please specify the target gene for the PCR amplifications, which is normally according to the result data, is the rDNA ITS region. This section should be also amended with the PCR primer pairs used for the amplification of the ITS region.
As the PCR amplifications were performed according to Wang et al. (2017) and these last authors amplified two regions (ITS and LSU), it will be more clear for readers to describe the PCR protocol used for the amplification of the ITS region.
Validity of the findings: Results comments:
Line 156: Authors state that they collected 32 ascocarps of M. terfezioides from Inner Mongolia; however they studied the DNA from only one specimen? Why the DNA of the others 31 specimens were not studied? Studying a large collection of specimens would support the scientific findings of this study and bring probably more explanations to the phylogeographic pattern of the investigated Mattirolomyces species.
Line 161: The two terms solid and spongy used to describe the gleba of M. terfezioides have opposite meanings. Authors should choose one of the two terms.
Line 163: The compact robust hyphal aggregate represented in the picture 1B is called nombril according to Awamah and Alsheikh (1979). So please replace the term sclerotia by nombril in the text.
Lines 174-175: These two sentences “Sclerotia: attached… the roots. Aroma…pleasantly sweet” should be removed from this section as Authors are describing Microscopic features and the nombril and aroma are considered as morphological criteria; besides that they were already cited in the macroscopic description of M. terfezioides (lines 162-163).
Line 178: Authors qualified the soil pH value which corresponds to 7.34 as slightly basic. This value classifies this soil as a neutral soil. In fact, soils can be classified according to their pH value as: neutral—6.5 to 7.5; alkaline—over 7.5; acidic—less than 6.5, and soils with pH less than 5.5 are considered strongly acidic.
Line 180: Please precise the geographic origin of collections targeted in the table 1 for the comparison of the average annual precipitation.
Lines 190, 191: Please check the figures orders in the figures legends and correct it subsequently in the text
Lines 192-194: The meaning of this section “The high distance…taxa and their sequences” is not clear, please reformulate it.

Discussion comments:
Line 237: Authors should give more specifications about the type of BSk climate classified according to the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Is it an arid or semi-arid climate zone?
Lines 257-259: The meaning of the following sentence « This is another example… on specific soil conditions (Neville et al., 2019) » is not clear. Please rephrase this section and clarify it by adding more precisions on the host plant concerned and by giving a logical sense to this sentence.
Additional comments: Tables comments:

Table 1:
Please change the title to:
Collection information of M. terfezioides nuclear rDNA ITS sequence generated in the present work and ITS sequences from the genus Mattirolomyces used in this study retrieved from GenBank or UNITE databases. Species names and GenBank accession numbers were supplemented with geographic origin of the collection, climate, potential host plants and other site data, if available.
Please replace the title country and area or origin by geographic origin
Please replace the GenBank reference code by GenBank accession numbers

Figures comments:
Figures legends:
There is a redundancy in the figures legends (Fig. 4 and Fig.5) and an incoherency between the figures legends and the different titles attributed to each figure. This section needs an intense revision.
Please change the Fig.1 legend to:
Macro- and micromorphological characteristics of M. terfezioloides.
A Ascocarps in situ; B Nombril attached to the ascocarp; C Gleba; D, E Asci and spores; F Spore with warty, blunt spines (scanning electron micrograph).
Figs. 2 and 3 legends:
Please change the Fig. 3 legend according to the modifications made on this section in the revised version of the manuscript.
Please add to Fig. 4 legend:
The M. terfezioides rDNA ITS sequence obtained in the present study is indicated by a black triangle.


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: DISTRIBUTION AND PHYLOGEOGRAPHY OF THE GENUS MATTIROLOMYCES WITH A FOCUS ON THE ASIAN M. TERFEZIOIDES HAPLOTYPES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors addressed the main concerns from my comments and thus achieved the majority of the necessary revisions. However, there are still additional (minor) comments to make as authors added new text sections in order to revise some paragraphs and which contained grammar and vocabulary errors. Furthermore, authors omitted to revise some sections of the figures and tables legends.

Abstract:
Line 29: Authors still didn’t clarify the meaning of the term “basal” in this sentence which seems inappropriate and I suggest replacing it.
- Authors omitted to add the list of keywords with the requested changes

Introduction:
Line 40: Please remove the comma after 1938.
Line 41: As the authors preferred to start a new sentence in this line, they should add the word “this last”: Mattirolo named this last in 1887 as…
Line 42: Please rewrite the sentence as follow: however, Moreno et al. (2012) confirmed later its separate generic position from the genus Choiromyces.
Line 46: Please delete the word “is an” in the sentence: “belongs to the "is an" ascomycetous desert truffles”.
Line 48: Please replace the word “an” by “a”.
Line 57: Please replace the word “in” by “from”.
Line 65: Please replace the words hunting and harvesting in this sentence: “regular hunting and harvesting” by “hunt and harvest”.
Experimental design: Material and Methods:
Lines 125-129: Please rewrite this paragraph as follow: “The macro-morphological characterization of ascomata was performed using a stereomicroscope (Motic K400, Motic Asia, Hong Kong) following the Mattirolomyces morphological characters description of Kovács et al. (2011). The micro-morphological features were determined on 30 spores and asci using a light microscope (Motic BA410E with a Moticam2506 camera, Motic Asia, Hong Kong). Melzer's reagent…
Lines 138-141: Please rewrite this paragraph as follow:
DNA extraction, PCR amplification of the complete rDNA ITS region using primers ITS1f / ITS4 (White et al. 1990) and Taq PCR Master Mix (Biobasic, Ontario, Canada) as well as sequencing were carried out according to Wang et al. (2017). PCR products were purified…

Results:
Line 201: In the first version of the manuscript, authors stated that the peridium was not clearly differentiated from the gleba and in the new revised version of the paper they mentioned the complete opposite. Was the peridium well differentiated from the gleba or not?

Discussion:
Line 278: Please add the word “are” to the following sentence: “Our collections are originated from the continental…”
Line 279: Please replace the word “of” in this sentence by characterized: “an area characterized by cold semi-arid climates…”
Line 305: Authors cannot claim that Asian Populus spp. are most likely the primary ectomycorrhizal host for M. terfezioides since they didn’t examine the root system of these plants and determine the mycorrhizal type formed between the two partners in the field.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Figures comments:
Figures legends
- There is still an incoherency between the figures legends and the different titles attributed to each figure. According to the figures legends, the figures 2 and 3 are combined in one figure (Figure 2 left and right); however, they are represented in the figures section as two separate figures (Fig.2 and Fig.3). This section should be checked and revised according to the Figures legends.
- The Figures and tables legends were well revised in the section figure and tables legends (lines 411-438); however, the figures and tables titles in the next pages remain with the same old captions and should be corrected following the revised version of the figures and tables legends.
Fig. 3: Please remove the automatic grammar checker under the species names in the phylogenetic tree.


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: BIOGAS SLURRY APPLICATION ALTERS SOIL PROPERTIES, RESHAPES THE SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITY, AND ALLEVIATES ROOT ROT OF PANAX NOTOGINSENG
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: •	It might be helpful for the authors to provide more specific details about why biogas slurry is a suitable fertilizer. What is the C:N? Do all biogass slurries have similar compositions? Which volatile organic compounds are found in BS, and why do those impact biological activity?
•	What crops are used for the rotation strategy? (L85)
•	Additional details on the previous results of BSF might also be helpful for the reader. For example, how and/or why does BSF promote nutrient cycling? Which nutrients? Does BSF have positive impacts for all soil types and/or environmental conditions?
•	Related to the previous point, it is not completely clear why the authors decided that BSF and WF might specifically help with Sanqi root rot. Did previous studies find that BSF and/or WF controls other Fusarium spp.?
•	It would be helpful for the authors to provide some hypotheses about their treatments.
•	For figures and tables, it would be helpful to provide information reminding the reader what the sample labels stand for (i.e. CK1d = Check 1 day, etc.). In general, figure captions need a little more information describing the figure. For example, what statistical analysis was used for Fig 1? In Fig 3a and b, what do the dotted lines indicate?
Experimental design: •	Why was a 1:1 soil:water ratio chosen for the WF treatment? Why dilute BS by 50% and not 25% or some other percentage?
•	How much soil was collected at each sampling event?
•	If the bottles were sealed, was there any additional oxygen provided during the incubation period? If gas samples weren’t being collected, why were the bottles sealed? Were they incubated in the dark or light?
•	Were samples collected from the same bottles for each time point? If so, did the unsealing of the bottles change the air conditions?
•	Was there a no-treatment control, i.e. a soil that was not flooded?
•	How was quality filtering of the raw sequencing reads performed?
•	What p-value was considered significant?
•	Why was NH4+ the only nutrient assessed? Why not total N or carbon?
Validity of the findings: •	Were the differences in VFAs with the addition of BS statistically significant? If so, that should be clearly indicated in the Results, and p-values should be presented for non-significant differences.
•	As there were multiple time points, it is not clear in L242 to when pH and NH4+ increased and Eh decreased. Be specific as possible when reporting results.
•	Rather than describe the clustering of the samples in the PCoA, it would be more informative for the authors to use the statistical results to indicate which groups had significantly different community compositions.
•	It is not clear what the authors mean by the samples being “regrouped” into 5 larger groups (L292). Were these groups analyzed independently?
•	L305: What do the authors mean by “globally”?
•	The pathogenicity of many fungi is often at the species level. However, sequencing generally only provides genera-level identification. While using changes in the abundance of fungal genera with known pathogens to assess treatment efficacy is a good step, the authors should acknowledge the limitations of these results and analyses.
•	Bacteria and fungi taxonomic information are not always properly written. There should not be any underscores in an organism name.
•	What do the authors mean by “marker taxa”? How were marker taxa identified?
•	L423: soil organic matter was not measured, so how can the authors be certain that BSF treatment “introduced large amounts of organic materials into the soil”?
•	How do the authors know that the fungus labeled “OTU_1” is a facultative and/or anaerobic organism?
•	There are many taxa within the Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria phyla that may be beneficial. By how much were Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria depleted compared to the control soils?
•	L539: What do the authors mean that “a higher microbial diversity community can harbor the lower biomass”? Lower biomass of what?
Additional comments: •	This manuscript provides the results of a lab incubation study examining the impact of using a biogas slurry to flood soils and control pathogens problematic for Sanqi growth. As the authors point out, this is similar to the anaerobic soil disinfestation technique that has been used to control similar pathogens in other cropping systems. The use of biogas slurry is an interesting idea and the results of this study provide excellent initial information about the potential microbial mechanisms by which biogas slurry flooding impacts pathogen abundance.
•	However, some re-arranging and editing of the Introduction and Discussion would better help explain the rationale for the study. In particular, the information about ASD and the similarities to biogas slurry flooding should be provided in the Introduction.
•	The authors do point out some of the limitations with a few of the methods (i.e. culturable methods), but do not address the limitations of performing lab incubations in sealed glass containers. Lab incubation studies are an acceptable method for initial studies, but the authors should point out the limitations and maybe provide more information regarding how the results found in this study may vary to field-based tests.


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: BIOGAS SLURRY APPLICATION ALTERS SOIL PROPERTIES, RESHAPES THE SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITY, AND ALLEVIATES ROOT ROT OF PANAX NOTOGINSENG
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Soil sterilization with biogas slurry and cultivation tests with plants have been conducted, and the contents are highly influential. However, before accepting the manuscript, the following needs to be addressed.

L195:
Is the software used QIIME? The software name and version should be provided.

L251: as approximately 90% of the root showed root rot symptoms (Fig. 2b).
Fig.2b does not show 90% of the root rot symptoms. This problem can be solved by changing the location of (Fig.2b) in the text.

Fig.2b and Fig.2c:
It would be easier for the reader to understand if the criteria for root rot were also shown. It is not clear which are normal and which are root rot.

L254:
"Notably, water treatment (CK) had no obvious effect on the pathogenicity of soil (Fig. 2a)." is not necessary; it duplicates the content of L250-252.

L275-278:
"CH15d/CH30d" and "CF15d/CF30d" are not intended to represent fractions, so the notation without "/" is preferred.

Table 1:
There is no "CK0d" in Table 1. Is it unmeasured?

L296:
 In Fig. 3b, the plots of CF15.30d and CH15.30d overlap, is there a significant difference between them?

Fig.3b:
Isn't CHCF1d a mistake for CHCF0d?

L300-L303:
In which figure is otu_1 located?
If there is no figure to refer to, insert "data not shown".

L299-352
L299-352 discusses the changes in the composition of bacteria and fungi due to biogas slurry treatment. However, a correct evaluation of biogas slurry treatment cannot be made without the addition of data on whether the "number" of plant pathogenic fungi such as Fusarium is reduced or not. Therefore, it is desirable to conduct real-time PCR (quantitative PCR) and resubmit the results with the data. (For example, the percentage of Fusarium in CF30d (Fig.4b) is apparently higher than that in control, but if the total number of fungi is reduced, then the number of Fusarium is actually reduced more than that in control.)

Fig2d suggests that the biogas slurry treatment reduced the fungal count. If it is not possible to perform real-time PCR (quantitative PCR), why not consider the results of Fig.2d (decrease in fungal and Fusarium counts) together with the results of Fig.4b?


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: BIOGAS SLURRY APPLICATION ALTERS SOIL PROPERTIES, RESHAPES THE SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITY, AND ALLEVIATES ROOT ROT OF PANAX NOTOGINSENG
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: L40: “more potential”

L45-48: This sentence needs to be revised. Possibly “Microcosms were established with soil from a P. notoginseng…” and then “followed by an investigation of changes…”

L55: “, suppressed the culturable fungi and Fusarium, and eventually decreased….”

L71: “…the number of biogas plants….”

L80: “…partly due to its biological activity….”

L82: “…reduced the incidence….”

L119: I don’t think “Meanwhile” is the appropriate transition word here. Maybe “In addition, ….)?

128: “….suppress pathogens and….”

L275: “…significantly increased in BS-addition groups….”

L291-2: “…while healthy roots showed no symptoms and remained intact….”

L390: While it is true that the Silva database identifies taxa as “unidentified_Rikenellaceae” (for example,) it is common practice to manually edit these results and just call them “unidentified Rikenellaceae.”

L428: “….most abundant bacteria….”

The authors have done a great job responding to the previous comments. The manuscript is much improved. Listed below are several grammatical/word-choice edits.

L477: “The present study showed…”

L481: “In the present study,…”

L490: “The present study…”

L499: “….similar to previous studies…”
L500: “…pathogens, but the efficacy in the field needs further….”

L525: “….ITS genes, and sequence data analysis method (Bonk…”

L528: “….higher tolerance were less effected…”

L529: “…increased ratio of Fusarium…”

L555: “…soils, and are considered marker taxa of….”

574: “…the soil environment,…but the bacterial….”

L577: “Similarly, the present study…”

L585: I’d replace “Additionally” with “However”

L592: “The present study…” In this paragraph, there are numerous places where sentences need to be edited to be “the present study” rather than just “present study.”

The Fig 3 caption has several typos.
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: BIOGAS SLURRY APPLICATION ALTERS SOIL PROPERTIES, RESHAPES THE SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITY, AND ALLEVIATES ROOT ROT OF PANAX NOTOGINSENG
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has greatly improved. There are still a few grammatical errors in the abstract and manuscript, primarily subject-verb agreement.

L47: It would be helpful to make sure that it is clear the authors are discussing changes to the soil bacterial and fungal communities and use that adjective more frequently to make this clear.

L55: What do the authors mean that BSF “promoted the bacterial community”? Which parts of the bacterial community?

L57: Do the authors mean BSF rather than just BS?

L273: Were the increases and decreases in pH and NH4+ statistically significant? If so, the authors should include this information. This information should be provided when reporting the results of all statistical analyses.

L456: What do the authors mean by BS being a fertilizer with “high quality”? Also, why would biological toxicity make an organic fertilizer a good candidate for green agriculture. To me, this phrase implies that it will be harmful to all biology, not necessarily just pathogens.

L602: What do the authors mean the “bacterial community was tightly clustered in the phylogenetic assembly”? What does a tight clustering indicate biologically?
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The edits that need to be made are very minor. I do not think it needs to be sent out for review again if the editor can verify the corrections have been made.


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: BIOGAS SLURRY APPLICATION ALTERS SOIL PROPERTIES, RESHAPES THE SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITY, AND ALLEVIATES ROOT ROT OF PANAX NOTOGINSENG
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: This paper has been appropriately improved.
If the following points are appropriately addressed, it is considered acceptable.

Fig.4
Please add the criteria encompassed in the "Other" section to the figure's legend.

L462-464
In addition, correlation analysis between the most abundant bacteria and fungi revealed a higher proportion of negative (71%) than positive (29%) correlations (Fig. 6c).

Please add a definition of "the most abundant bacteria and fungi" somewhere.

L614-616
These facultative/anaerobic taxa may compete with pathogenic fungi or further create an anaerobic environment that is unfavorable for their survival.

Because methanogenic archaea utilize acetic acid and hydrogen, they do not compete nutritionally with pathogenic fungi. In addition, methanogenic archaea cannot consume oxygen and thus cannot create an anaerobic environment.
A reconsideration of the discussion is needed.

L627: most abundant bacteria and fungi
Please add a definition of "the most abundant bacteria and fungi" somewhere.

【Below, if possible.】
L326-327
Fusarium/fungi and bacteria/fungi were both significantly reduced by BSF treatment, with CH treatment showing the lowest Fusarium/fungi ratio

Why did the low concentration biogas slurry (CH) show better results than the high concentration biogas slurry (CF)? If possible, please add discussion.


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: INCIPIENT SPECIATION, HIGH GENETIC DIVERSITY, AND ECOLOGICAL DIVERGENCE IN THE ALLIGATOR BARK JUNIPER SUGGEST COMPLEX DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES DURING THE PLEISTOCENE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: This study combines phylogeography using 3 sequence data sets and species distribution modelling to investigate the genetic structure and diversity and niche differentiation of the Junipers deppeana complex. The analyses are thorough and mostly well presented. However, some work needs to be done to ensure that the main conclusions are fully supported by the results. In addition, the modelling and niche differentiation results could be simplified to ease understanding. Please see my other comments and suggestions below:
Line 32-33 I am not convinced that a north-south clinal structure has been detected. The mantel test (appendix 4) figure in the supp materials includes all populations and is still not significant (Line 282). What other evidence is there for a clinal structure?
Line 88 I suggest replacing ‘taxonomy has been unstable’ with ‘taxonomy is considered unstable’  or ‘taxonomy is unresolved with wide morphological variation’.
Line 113 Why were a few individuals J. flaccida and J. durangensis included? Are these phylogenetically related?
Line 126-127 Why were these fragments chosen for sequencing? For example, have they proved to be variable in other Junipers species?
Line 156-157 Structure is not designed for linked SNPs like sequence data. In the ‘Documentation for structure software: Version 2.3’ it says that:
‘The structure model assumes that loci are independent within populations (i.e., not in LD within populations). This assumption is likely to be violated for sequence data, or data from nonrecombining regions such as Y chromosome or mtDNA.’
And
‘However, if the data are dominated by one or a few non- or low-recombining regions, then structure could be seriously misled.’
The manual suggest that for linked sequence data ‘a safe and valid solution is to recode the haplotypes from each linked region so that haplotypes are represented as a single locus with n alleles. If there are very many haplotypes, one could group related haplotypes together.’
Can the authors please confirm if there coding method has followed this advice? I also suggest using BAPS that may improve results as it specifically implements a model for clustering DNA sequence data (see Cheng, Lu, et al. "Hierarchical and spatially explicit clustering of DNA sequences with BAPS software." Molecular biology and evolution 30.5 (2013): 1224-1228.)
Line 342 Why is the genetic diversity of J. blancoi comparable to J. deppeana? It is not obvious. Looking at the Moreno-Letelier et al., 2014 it is clear that the two species have overlapping ranges and range-wide sampling was used to estimate diversity in the Moreno-Letelier et al., 2014 paper. This may seem trivial but it is crucial for establishing one of the main points in the abstract (lines 37-38) that J. deppeana has maintained high diversity.
Figure 1 It would be best to show the distribution of nuclear and chloroplast haplotypes on a map. Using only networks it is hard to get a sense of the differentiation between var. gamboana and the other varieties and whether a cline exists in the northern part of the range.
Also, what are the white and grey circles in the haplotype networks? Are they outgroups?
Figure 2 The distribution data used for modelling should be added to the SDM maps. For var. gamboana please check if the modelled area includes its current range. Unless I am mistaken it seems to be too far to the north outside the range of var. gamboana?
Figure S4.4. What are the numbers on the x-axis? They are too large for km.
I could not find a data deposition statement.


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: INCIPIENT SPECIATION, HIGH GENETIC DIVERSITY, AND ECOLOGICAL DIVERGENCE IN THE ALLIGATOR BARK JUNIPER SUGGEST COMPLEX DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES DURING THE PLEISTOCENE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors investigated genetic structure of Juniperus deppeana varieties (and one forma) using one cpDNA and two nDNA sequences, and conducted species distribution modeling of it. They found that one of the variety (var. gamboana) showed distinct genetic structure in nDNA and some of the varieties showed significant differences in their ecological niche. Study topic is interesting. Sampling looks enough. Although in usual only two nDNA sequences may be too small to discuss, as STRUCTURE showed clear separation between lineages, it may be enough to draw conclusion. So I think that this ms can be acceptable in JeerJ. However, I cannot agree one of the conclusion of this ms as shown in the followings.

### Major comments
I cannot agree that var. gamboana is a separate species, because there are no significant differentiation in cpDNA and ecological niche. I think that variety should be appropriate.

### Minor comments
1) L 257, Although the length of the sequences are shown in Table S3, it is better to show it also in the main text.

2) L289–290, It should be not CPD but HPD (highest posterior density).

3) L366–368, Please see my major comment. I think that distinct two varieties are appropriate. L492 is also the same.

4) Figure legend of Fig. 1, there are two "c"s exist. Moreorver, panels c and d should be invert.

5) Figure legend of Fig. 2, "d" and "e" should be invert. I think that it may be better to make the scales of each panels all the same.
Experimental design: See above.
Validity of the findings: See above.
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: INCIPIENT SPECIATION, HIGH GENETIC DIVERSITY, AND ECOLOGICAL DIVERGENCE IN THE ALLIGATOR BARK JUNIPER SUGGEST COMPLEX DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES DURING THE PLEISTOCENE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Martinez de Léon and colleagues presents a clear study of the phylogeography Juniperus deppeana. It follows the standards of peer-reviewed articles (I did not check PeerJ’s specific ones though) and figures are OK (see detailed comments below).
Although the English used is generally good, the manuscript would benefit from a round a reading by a fluent English speaker I think, as I noticed some mistakes (but I am not native speaker myself and I might have missed other ones).
I did not find info on if or where DNA data was made available for the general public, but the DNA alignments were made available for reviewers and their quality is very good.
Experimental design: The work presented here falls within the scope of PeerJ, it is well defined and is both executed and presented rigorously.
Validity of the findings: I trust all analyses and conclusions presented in this work, and rather regret that the authors did not engage into more interpretation: they stayed very safe.
Additional comments: The manuscript by Martinez de Léon and colleagues presents a clear study of the phylogeography Juniperus deppeana. The work presented here is sound and surely worthy of publication. However, I think that some improvements could be made to make the manuscript less descriptive and help it reach a wider audience: for the moment it is centered on inferring the history of one species but I think that this kind of case study always carries important information for understanding the bigger picture, that is the history of ecosystems on Earth. Unfortunately, such a connection is not explicitly done here.

Major comments

Introduction
While the introduction is well written and easy to read, I found the presentation of « mexical » and the justification for its phylogeographic study too short. I think the authors should take the time to develop a bit on the history of this vegetation, its general ecology and its importance as an ecosystem. How is it different from other vegetation types in Mexico? What will this phylogeographic study on one juniper tell us about the history of this vegetation type?
Also, at the end of the introduction specific hypotheses about the phylogeography of Juniperus deppeana are not formulated, the only sentence is the following: ‘We hypothesized that due to the climatic differences between the distributions of its varieties, processes such as glacial oscillations in the last 2.5 My have affected each variety differently.’ This is very vague and unspecific, it could have been written for any organism in any place on Earth. The authors should explain what impacts glacial cycles might have had on the species, and how this would have differed between regions/subspecies. Without this, the manuscript is purely descriptive and only relevant to  J. deppeana but we do not understand what general knowledge this study brings.

Material and methods
In the methods a lot of analyses are presented one after the other, but we are lacking an overview of why all of these methods are used. I know this is rather standard in the population genetics/phyloeography literature, but I don’t think it is a good practice. Why for example do the authors measure IBD, how is this relevant to Pleistocene glacial cycles in a complex topographic landscape? This list of analyses rather reads like the authors have tried to tick all the ‘classics’, but they might not all be necessary. I must note, however, that all of these measures are discussed, which is a very good point.

In addition to the haplotype networks presented in Fig. 1A, I am wondering why the authors did not estimate a multilocus phylogeny of the different individuals or populations? Such a phylogeny, especially if dated (which could be done exactly as for the skyline plots), would help a lot understanding the history of the species and how and when the different populations/lineages diverged from each other.

When building the SDMs with Maxent, using ‘10 non-correlated’ BIOCLIM variables (as stated in  L205) seems like a dubious choice for two reasons: I doubt that there are actually 10 non-correlated variables (at least I would like it to be shown) and a more sensible choice of explanatory variables could perhaps be done based on the ecology of  J. deppeana, which is not discussed. For example, is this species affected by precipitation of the coldest quarter (Bio19)?

It is also quite intriguing to me that five entities are modeled separately based on their taxonomic affiliation (varieties), while genetic analyses only support two clusters (species). Why not be consistent and work with these two clusters only? This would also simplify a lot the message, especially Figures 2, 3 & 4.

Results
They are almost perfect.

Discussion
The parts dedicated to past environments (L384-390, also L407-414) were very interesting to read and well linked with both previous literature and the current results.

But, like in the Introduction, I feel that we miss a general discussion of the implications of this study and its findings for an understanding of the history of the “mexical”. Without such a discussion (to be clear: I am not asking for two sentences, but rather for a full-bodied section), we don’t really see the importance of the study.

Minor comments
L49. What do you mean by ‘the longest mountain’ ? Do you actually mean distance (it would be a bit strange and I would rather refer to area) or do you mean the oldest ?
L58. either ‘the temperate flora’ or ‘temperate floras’
L75. Please write ‘the latter being’
L89. Here the authors should refer to the figure showing the distribution map of the species, possibly figure 1b but it would be even better to have a separate figure showing the geographic distribution of the species, as well as the geographic features evoked in the manuscript (i.e. deserts, mountains ranges, etc.)
L101. Please write ‘that have created the genetic diversity’
L126. You should give references for the 3 genes used here. In particular, it would be interesting to present the two nuclear genes, which will not be familiar to most plant phylogeneticists: are they single copy? How variable are they?
L160. Can the authors justify their choice of a maximum number of K=7 clusters? It seems relatively low compared to the number of named subspecies (which might correspond to geographic clusters).
L204. Why didn’t the authors use records from herbaria in the Southern USA, aren’t they available?
L227. The explanation for this test is interesting: why not explaining this in the introduction?
L366. This is actually a very important point in my opinion, that the authors could bring more in the forefront of their article. Can they report Fst between the two species, average raw genetic distances, time of divergence?

Figure 2: the authors should describe the background map (in shades of grey) that they used: does it show elevation? Also, why not name the geographic bodies mentioned in the text?


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

Input:
Title: INCIPIENT SPECIATION, HIGH GENETIC DIVERSITY, AND ECOLOGICAL DIVERGENCE IN THE ALLIGATOR BARK JUNIPER SUGGEST COMPLEX DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES DURING THE PLEISTOCENE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Meets basic reporting standards
Experimental design: No problem
Validity of the findings: Validity of findings is adequate
Additional comments: The manuscript has been significantly improved and I am happy for it to be accepted. Apart from the suggestion to include a very brief description of the conservation status of var. gamboana (if there is space) I only have a few comments (see below):
Line 33 Which genetic cluster? The north or south?
Line 36-37. Best to order these impacts on the species genetic diversity by the order in which they have occurred (if it is not already) and, if there is room, say when they happened (e.g. during Glacials or the Holocene).
Line 65 What is meant by ‘historical relevance’?
Line 174-178  This paragraph is not needed. I suggest deleting it.
Line 247 Was the LIG warmer or wetter than the current interglacial? Given the SDM results for this period some comment should be provided about this.
Line 318 Should ‘Ne’ be italicized?
Line 426 What kind of evidence? Pollen?
Line 443 Change ‘to’ to ‘in the’.
Line 572-573 Like what? Contemporary gene flow?
Figure 1 What is the variety classifications based on? This should be indicated in the Figure 1 description. Also, the north arrow seems too big and out of place. Could it be changed to match the way it is shown in Figure 3?


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: INCIPIENT SPECIATION, HIGH GENETIC DIVERSITY, AND ECOLOGICAL DIVERGENCE IN THE ALLIGATOR BARK JUNIPER SUGGEST COMPLEX DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES DURING THE PLEISTOCENE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for revising the manuscript. I have confirmed all changes related to my previous comments.
Experimental design: Nothing.
Validity of the findings: Nothing.
Additional comments: Nothing.


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: INCIPIENT SPECIATION, HIGH GENETIC DIVERSITY, AND ECOLOGICAL DIVERGENCE IN THE ALLIGATOR BARK JUNIPER SUGGEST COMPLEX DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES DURING THE PLEISTOCENE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Martinez de Léon and colleagues presents a clear study of the phylogeography Juniperus deppeana. It follows the standards of peer-reviewed articles (I did not check PeerJ’s specific ones though) and figures are OK.
Experimental design: The work presented here falls within the scope of PeerJ, it is well defined and is both executed and presented rigorously.
Validity of the findings: I trust all analyses and conclusions presented in this work.
Additional comments: I have now assessed the revision of the manuscript by Martinez de Léon and colleagues (I was ‘reviewer 3’ in the previous round of reviews) and I still think that it presents a clear study of the phylogeography of Juniperus deppeana.

Some improvements have been made to the manuscript, which I find now has a broader scope. In particular I appreciate the efforts that have been made to describe the mexical vegetation and to discuss how this study contributes to understand its history.

What still bothers me is the ambiguity between the current taxonomic treatment of these populations and genetic results. The authors are constantly moving between one and the other, sometimes justifying some analyses based on traditional taxonomy, other times on genetic clustering alone (see example below).

All of the points I raised in the first review have been addressed either by making changes to the text or directly in the rebuttal letter. However, I see that none of the analyses have been changed, which I find a bit frustrating. To give specific examples:
(i) why did the authors not include their multilocus phylogeny in the manuscript (or in the supplementary) if they built one? The fact that this tree was poorly resolved is actually a result that should not be hidden I think.
(ii) again, if the aim is to ‘assess[] genetic structure’ (quote from the main text of the manuscript), I don’t understand the justification for stopping the STRUCTURE runs at K=7 because ‘higher values for K when the resulting plot stopped giving additional information and only showed within group structure’ (quote from the rebuttal letter). The authors are precisely answering that these higher numbers of clusters were showing some structure, right? Shall I assume that this structure was deemed irrelevant based on an a priori opinion?

Apart from that I have only two minor points to raise.

MM: please do not write ‘10 non-correlated BIOCLIM variables’. From what the authors responded to my comment on this point in the first submission I understand that some of these 10 variables are most likely highly correlated, but with a correlation coefficient lower than 0.8.

In the supplementary materials, in one instance CHELSA is written ‘CHLESA’


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: SLOWER MAXIMAL WALKING SPEED IS ASSOCIATED WITH POORER GLOBAL COGNITIVE FUNCTION AMONG OLDER ADULTS RESIDING IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: a.	Lines 64-72: There’s a lot of good information in this paragraph, but I’m having trouble identifying the main argument. For example, what is the “cognitive clock,” and has previous work supported the idea that physical function could be a proxy measure of the cognitive clock?
b.	I was surprised to see how much discussion there was on the prevalence of MCI in the discussion section (Lines 228-250). Was one of the main goals of this manuscript to describe the prevalence of MCI among older adults? If not, it’s not clear to me how this paragraph informs the results beyond demonstrating the generalizability of the results.
Experimental design: a.	Were participants excluded based on any cognitive criteria?
b.	How many walking speed trials were done per condition (i.e., number of usual gait speed trials and fast pace trials)? What were participants told to do in each condition? Were the gait trials done in the same order for all participants, or were the conditions counterbalanced?
c.	“Confounders” subheading-> It is mentioned in Table 1’s note what the age categories represent. I would recommend also including this information in the manuscript under this heading.
d.	Line 153: UWS and MWS [differed] by age. Since you indicate the directionality of the results throughout the rest, it may be good to do that here (even if it’s in the expected direction).
Validity of the findings: a.	Lines 212-213: It’s noted that UWS may not be consistent across different ethnogeographic regions as well as one’s health status. Compared to other cohorts, is the prevalence of health conditions different among this sample? It is also possible that variability in UWS could be driven by the sample age; were the articles cited different in the sample age? It appears as though the older adults in the Tanimoto et al. article were somewhat older but walked faster.
b.	What sort of conclusions should we draw, if any, regarding UWS versus MWS as a measure of central nervous system integrity and function?
c.	Lines 251-273: This paragraph does a nice job summarizing why MWS may be more related to cognition than UWS. Do the authors anticipate that this relationship would hold across different cognitive domains? For example, it may be that MWS and UWS are equally predictive of memory, but MWS may be more related to speed of processing/attention than UWS since there is a speeded component that is more apparent in MWS (or something).
Additional comments: a.	What is the correlation between usual and rapid gait speed?
b.	Because these analyses rely on cross-sectional data, I would recommend referring to them as, e.g., age-related differences rather than changes.
c.	Was the association between gait and cognition similar across the different age bands? For example, the association between UWS and cognition may be stronger among adults in their late 80s compared to those in their early 60s. This could answer whether there are ages where UWS and MWS predict cognition to a similar degree (e.g., maybe in the terminal decline stage).


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: SLOWER MAXIMAL WALKING SPEED IS ASSOCIATED WITH POORER GLOBAL COGNITIVE FUNCTION AMONG OLDER ADULTS RESIDING IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Basic Reporting
a.	Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
The language is mostly ok. Terminology commonly used in longitudinal studies needs revising. Occasionally sentences are missing the comparator e.g. MWS was significantly slower after the early 80s for men and after the late 70s for women – is this compared to all other age groups, the youngest or the one directly preceding?
b.	Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
I would suggest that reviews, since there are several available, should be used in the introduction.
c.	Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
The article is appropriately structured, with figures and tables.
The figures would benefit from including a measure of spread/variability. The figures y-axis do not start at zero, but there is no axis break to indicate this.
Raw data has been shared. There is missing data that has not been addressed in the study.
d.	Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
There are many research questions presented in the results (age-related gait decline, age-related cognitive decline, each of these are presented by sex), but really only one clearly articulated in the introduction (relationship between gait and cognitive decline). No hypothesis is provided.
Experimental design: 2.	Experimental design
a.	Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Original research within scope of the journal.
b.	Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
The primary aim is articulated. I feel the novelty and evidence gap that is being addressed needs to be more clearly articulated since there is already much literature in this area.
c.	Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
The study received ethical approval. The model provided in Table 3 examining the relationship between cognitive performance and gait speed has been adjusted for potential confounders. Additional factors that have not been reported could affect gait speed.
d.	Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
The methods are mostly clear, I have provided comment on aspects that could be improved in the PDF.
Validity of the findings: 3.	Validity of the findings
a.	Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
The relationship between gait and cognition is not novel. The study could better articulate the need for this study in the introduction.
b.	All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Measure of spread/variance for gait speed by age category figure (or report values in table) would benefit the reader. There is missing data that has not been reported.
The between group comparisons have not been adjusted for confounders, however, the main aim has been adjusted. There are some other factors that may influence gait speed/cognition e.g. dementia and OA.
c.	Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
The abstract conclusion goes beyond what is reported in the abstract results. The study conclusion is in line with the study findings.
Additional comments: Summary
This cross-sectional study has examined gait speed (usual pace and maximal) and cognitive function in 791 Chinese older people. The study has shown that gait speed and cognitive function is reduced in older age groups and that cognitive function, measured by the Chinese MoCA, is related to maximal but not usual gait speed. Sex differences in walking speed and cognitive decline were also investigated. There was no sex difference in cognitive performance. Maximal but not usual walking speed was affected by sex.
Main concerns:
1.	My main concern is the lack of novelty of the manuscript. The evidence gap that this research is addressing needs to be better highlighted/presented more convincingly in the introduction. There is much literature on the association between cognitive function and gait, what does this study add that hasn’t been done already. Is it that it is in Chinese older people, if so, why is important to understand this relationship in this group of people? Is it the use of two walking speeds (this has also been examined before: Callisaya 2017, Umegaki 2018), but is less common? Is it the sex contrasts (this has been done as per authors)? What is the study adding?
2.	Some of the group sizes are quite small secondary to the subgroups, particularly in the oldest group when examined by sex. The number of people with MCI in these groups, although a high proportion are still a very small number of people - which can reduce generalisability of the findings. Additionally, there are a lot of comparisons that involve quite small subgroup sample sizes (gait, MoCA, MCI prevalence).
3.	For all but Table 3, the only statistical details provided are p-values and in some parts, not even this is provided (age-related gait changes).
4.	The definition used for MCI was a cut-point on a cognitive scale, but did not include other diagnostic criteria for MCI. This needs to be discussed in more detail (as a limitation) particularly in relation to the higher prevalence of MCI in the current study. Also, I couldn’t find anything to indicate that people with dementia were excluded, which could also be contributing to the higher prevalence. If people with dementia were not excluded, this medical condition should be used as a confounder in the linear regression models.
5.	The discussion compares the results to existing studies, but there is little discussion on what this study actually adds to the literature. Also, more on what the findings mean would be beneficial?

Additional comments:
I have provided a detailed review by annotating the PDF.
A couple of points for consideration:
It should be clear in the abstract that the walking distance is actually 6m (x2).
All of the tables are to 2 decimal places, which I feel makes the tables difficult to read and that this level of sensitivity is not required.
There is a lot of double reporting in tables/text – I will leave this to the editor to determine what is appropriate for the journal, however, unless it is a main finding I would suggest that the authors only need to report results once.
Age-related change in gait speed: There doesn’t seem to be any actual statistics reported for this section, just statements about significance.
The figures presenting gait speed lack standard deviations/confidence intervals. I have suggested adding raw data to a table, alternatively, SD or CI need to be added to the figures.
In the introduction, I feel that it would be better to use systematic reviews to support statements.
Line 79 is without a reference/s and I feel that it is not really accurate based on the evidence (a list is provided in the PDF).
Table 2 describes ‘Changes in total MoCA….’ in the title, but this is a cross-sectional study, so this needs to be revised.
Using the term ‘Decline’ can imply that the study is longitudinal. This should be revised so that it is clear that you are examining between group differences cross-sectionally. E.g. In the groups that were 80 years or older, MoCA scores were significantly lower than other age groups.
Please include sample sizes in the tables, so that they can standalone.
There are several typographical issues e.g. spacing.
The ethical review files are mislabelled. The English version is labelled as Chinese for one document and vice versa.

Suggestion: It may be interesting to look at the gain in gait speed from UWS to MWS and its relationship with cognition.


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: SLOWER MAXIMAL WALKING SPEED IS ASSOCIATED WITH POORER GLOBAL COGNITIVE FUNCTION AMONG OLDER ADULTS RESIDING IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction provides clear rationale, whilst methods and results are clearly presented, with a nice balance struck between text/table/figures, and the discussion provides context to the findings.

However, of importance for attention, there are some issues around presentation of data which I believe need to be addressed with this submission. Firstly, the formatting of Table 2 (to clarify significant differences) and Table 3 (to prevent runover onto multiple lines) needs some tidying up, to help reader understanding and clarify/simplify the many annotations within these tables.

Secondly, there is a need for a thorough proofread of this submission, to rectify the various minor spelling and grammatical errors and inconsistences present throughout the manuscript. Within this, there is a need to ensure a consistent reference approach is maintained throughout; there is an instance in the discussion where referencing slips to Numbered (line 219), which needs rectifying (and checking for other instances).
Experimental design: The research has deployed a valid experimental design; following sound methodological and statistical approaches and using established assessment tools and appropriate cut-offs. Methods and results are clearly presented, with a nice balance struck between text/table/figures. The authors go on to provide valid comparison to relevant research in the Discussion, providing context to findings and presenting plausible background to the relationship reported in this study (between MWS and cognitive function).
Validity of the findings: This research highlights the relationship between walking speed and cognitive function, framing this within the context of a developing country. As such, the findings can help inform the use of walking speed as a potential indicator of early cognitive decline; to that end, this research has good potential to help inform future research and clinical practice.
Additional comments: As above, this research highlights the relationship between walking speed and cognitive function, framing this within the context of a developing country. As such, the findings can help inform the use of walking speed as a potential indicator of early cognitive decline; to that end, this research has good potential to help inform future research and clinical practice.

I thank the authors for their presentation of a clear and robust investigation of the association between walking speed and cognition, discussing the ensuing relationship within the context of relevant research and appropriately acknowledging study limitations/making recommendations for future research.


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

Input:
Title: SLOWER MAXIMAL WALKING SPEED IS ASSOCIATED WITH POORER GLOBAL COGNITIVE FUNCTION AMONG OLDER ADULTS RESIDING IN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No Comment
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: No Comment
Additional comments: Thank you to the authors for your thoughtful incorporation of the reviewer and editor feedback. This is a well-conducted and written study, and I look forward to citing it in the future! The authors should be commended on a job 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: SLOWER MAXIMAL WALKING SPEED IS ASSOCIATED WITH POORER GLOBAL COGNITIVE FUNCTION AMONG OLDER ADULTS RESIDING IN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: a.	Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
The language is mostly ok. Terminology commonly used in longitudinal studies still needs revising.
b.	Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Improved from first submission
c.	Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
The article is appropriately structured, with figures and tables.
Raw data has been shared. There is no longer any missing data.
d.	Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Yes
Experimental design: a.	Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Original research within scope of the journal.
b.	Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
The primary aim is articulated. The authors have improved on the rationale for the study.
c.	Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
The study received ethical approval. The models provided in Table 3 examining the relationship between cognitive performance and gait speed have been adjusted for potential confounders. Additional factors that have not been reported could affect gait speed, but this has been commented on in the discussion. It is not clear how the confounders for Table 2 were selected.
Validity of the findings: a.	Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
Rationale for study is clear.
b.	All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Yes
c.	Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
The conclusions are in line with the study findings, though the relationship between cognition and gait speed was only significant in the late 70’s group.
Additional comments: Summary
The authors’ have revised the manuscript and have responded appropriately to many of my concerns. There still a few items that need to be considered.

Main concerns:
1.	The small group sizes across the age groups for men needs to be acknowledged in the limitations section – this is not just in the older age group.
2.	The authors have still used the term decline in several places e.g. Title, when this tends to indicate that a study is longitudinal. The authors have corrected this in some instances but not others (I have noted this in the attached annotated PDF).
3.	There are still several instances where the sentences don’t make sense, or it is not clear what message is trying to be conveyed (I have noted this in the attached annotated PDF).
4.	It is not clear how the covariates for the ‘Age-related differences in walking speed’ were established. Additionally, for MWS both genders and women, the authors have controlled for both height and BMI, but height contributes to BMI, so why not just control for height and weight?
5.	The gender difference in walking speed may be attributable to height? Worth investigating?

Additional comments:
I have provided a detailed review by annotating the PDF.
There are several typographical issues e.g. spacing.
This suggestion was not considered: It may be interesting to look at the gain in gait speed from UWS to MWS and its relationship with cognition, but appreciate it may be out of the scope of the current manuscript