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: GRAB WHAT YOU CAN—AN EVALUATION OF SPATIAL REPLICATION TO DECREASE HETEROGENEITY IN SEDIMENT EDNA METABARCODING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I have read with interest this article. I found it interesting and worth publishing in PeerJ. It is quite straightforward and the conclusions, particularly the need to subsample within grabs, can be useful for future studies. Although only 30 samples are analysed, the authors compare the outcome of two different markers.
I would have appreciated if the study could have covered a comparison also between different locations, but I understand this is beyond the scope of this work.
I waive anonymity, and include below some comments (none too serious) that can, hopefully, improve the ms
One not-so-trivial comment. It is not clear to me what kind of data is available from Hantlen et al 2019, as the title of this report is in Norwegian, but I understand that this is a study using morphology on the same samples or the same location. If so, and in addition of comparing diversity values and quality indices, can the authors compare the actual results in terms of which species are found in 18S and COI datasets that have been detected morphologically?

Introduction
Line51. This statement needs a qualifying remark … it applies only to soft bottom benthos.
Paragraph in Line 75. It should be mentioned here that for metabarcoding studies there is also the option to sieve or not to sieve the sediment. This point is commented later on, but it would be useful to briefly mention here.
Lines 93-94. Can this ms provide some evidence to confirm or refute the idea that metazoans will have higher heterogeneity that microorganisms? I think so, but couldn’t find it in the Discussion
Line 118 and following. I understand this is not easy to explain, but many similar words are creating confusion. Sentences like “pooled extraction replicates from three spatial whole grab replicates from the same station” are confusing in my view. The terminology is also not consistent with that of the figure. What is a sample? The intra-grab five 50g “units” are referred to as subsamples in text but as samples in figure. What is a sub-sample: the different parts of a grab? Because the same name is used for the 50 g “units” in the text and for the 0.5 g “units” in the figure. Try to explain the terms right at the start and be consistent afterwards.

Methods
If I understand correctly, from the first 50g “unit” of each grab the DNA was extracted and amplified separately for each 0.5g “subunits”, but for the same “unit” the five extracts of the “subunits” have been also pooled and amplified. Can you explain? What volume of extraction product did you use for the separate amplifications and what volume is used for the pooling? Is the pooling performed always with the same volume of extract? Is the amount of DNA in the extracts quantified and volumes adjusted somehow to add the same amount of DNA per “subunit” to the pools?
Why limit the COI analysis to metazoans? This requires some justification
Explain the d parameter used in SWARM… the same for 18S and COI?
Results
Lines 231 and 241. I infer that by “number of sequences” the authors mean the number of reads obtained. It would be interesting to quote also the number of different sequences obtained (i.e., de-replicating reads).
An OTU is a taxon, ideally approaching species-level. Thus, I think it is misleading to say that an OTU is “the polychaete order Phyllodocida” (and similar sentences), because an order is not an OTU. I guess the authors mean “a member of the polychaete order Phyllodocida” (even if it cannot be given a species name). I strongly advice to rephrase this and similar sentences (unidentified Fungi, the nematode order Enoplida…).
Likewise, I also suggest to change the legend in Fig. 2. If two OTUs belonging to, say, Phyllodocida, are found, rather that using the name “Phyllodocida” for each, I think it is much clearer to use, e.g., Phyllodocida I and Phyllodocida II.
I imagine the authors picked a big polychaete in grab 1, subsample 1… bad luck, but illustrative of what can happen without proper replication!
Line 296. I do not see a “less evident” slope decrease for COI. Certainly not comparing Fig. 5A and C (rather the opposite). May be for the comparison Fig. 5B and 5D. I think this needs to be better formalised. I also suggest adding a third level of accumulation curves: the grab level, with values from 1 to 3 pooled grabs.
Discussion
Guardiola et al 2015 (10.1371/journal.pone.0139633) have compared average similarities within corers, within localities and between localities in deep sediment samples in the W Mediterranean. Likewise, Wangensteen et al 2018 (10.7717/peerj.4705, see Fig. S6) have compared the similarity between ecological replicates, extraction replicates, and PCR replicates in benthic samples (hard substratum). These results can provide useful comparisons here.
I think that the need to replicate grabs within stations is well demonstrated in this study but it is not anything novel, as any ecological study should pick replicate grabs, corers, whatever the sampling device is used. By contrast, the interest in replicating within grabs is new and nicely illustrated by the polychaete problem in subsample1.
While the grab and the within-grab replicates address ecological heterogeneity patterns, the extraction replicates address a technical problem (i.e., whether the amount of sediment used is sufficient). I would separate the two concepts clearly. From the results obtained, using a sample size of 0.5 g five times (five extractions that are pooled afterwards) seems to provide good results. For me, this outcome suggests that the advice should be to use other kits that extract a bigger amount of sediment such as the PowerMax Qiagen or the Norgen soil Maxi Kit. These technical options should be at least mentioned.

Xavier Turon


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: GRAB WHAT YOU CAN—AN EVALUATION OF SPATIAL REPLICATION TO DECREASE HETEROGENEITY IN SEDIMENT EDNA METABARCODING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Hestetun et al conducted an evaluation of spatial replication of North Sea sediment using metabarcoding data of two molecular markers 18S and COI. They analyzed three spatial scales: intra-sample level, grab level and station level using three sampling strategies by collecting eDNA from a single sediment subsample within the same part of a single grab; pooled extraction replicates from different parts of the same grab and pooled extraction replicates from three spatial whole grab replicates from the same station, respectively.
They compare results using common alpha and beta diversity measures such as richness, Shannon diversity and Bray-Curtis pairwise dissimilarity.

They were able to detect a considerable amount of eukaryote richness from a small amount of source sediment using the 18S metabarcoding dataset. In contrast, the COI metabarcoding data showed a high number of prokaryote and unassignable eukaryote reads. They have also produced nice figures evaluating their spatial replications.

However, I found it hard to follow their experiment design and sample labeling which was more clearly described in the Results section only (line 226 to 229). I suggest the authors to improve the description of each sample name inthe M&M section and on figure 1. For example, instead of only showing the label of subsamples I to V and pools A to E in figure 1, the schematic overview of the sampling layout (figure 1, A) could better depict this labeling logic and improve the readability of this labeling nomenclature. This would probably help readers to more easily follow all subsequent analyses as well.

Thus, I would recommend this manuscript for publication and congratulate the authors for such a nice work.
Experimental design: Good experimental design but need to be better described.
Validity of the findings: They were able to detect a considerable amount of eukaryote richness from a small amount of source sediment using the 18S metabarcoding dataset. In contrast, the COI metabarcoding data showed a high number of prokaryote and unassignable eukaryote reads. They have also produced nice figures evaluating their spatial replications.
Additional comments: I would recommend this manuscript for publication and congratulate the authors for such a nice work.


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: GRAB WHAT YOU CAN—AN EVALUATION OF SPATIAL REPLICATION TO DECREASE HETEROGENEITY IN SEDIMENT EDNA METABARCODING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: See general comments.
Experimental design: See general comments.
Validity of the findings: See general comments.
Additional comments: This manuscript by Hestetun et al. investigates among/between sample replication and consistency of eukaryote metabarcoding experiments by using a case study of sediment samples from the North Sea amplified with COI and 18S. They show the importance of replication and pooling in mitigating the influence of over-abundant OTUs in single samples. I think the study makes a useful contribution to the field.

While the sample sizes were modest, I thought that the study was well executed, explained clearly, and the data/code were accessible. Overall, I have no serious concerns. The authors may wish to consider some of the specific suggestions/comments below.

Rupert Collins

COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS

L84: yes, important point.

L178: I can’t see any details of how the reads were demultiplexed. I assume this was done by bcl2fastq on the MiSeq?

L189: the “https://github.com/lanzen/Metamon” link did not work. Looks like it should be "https://github.com/lanzen/Metamon1".

L232: maybe add a mean and standard deviation also?

L387: change “detect an” to “detect a”.

Figures: the colours in some of the figures (especially Fig 2 and Fig 5) are a little garish, and could benefit from more subdued colour palettes.

Figure 3: jittered data points could be superimposed on the boxplots to get a better idea of the spread of the data.


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

Input:
Title: GRAB WHAT YOU CAN—AN EVALUATION OF SPATIAL REPLICATION TO DECREASE HETEROGENEITY IN SEDIMENT EDNA METABARCODING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See General Comments
Experimental design: See General Comments
Validity of the findings: See General Comments
Additional comments: The authors have carefully and satisfactorily addressed all my concerns. In my view the ms is ready to go now.


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

Input:
Title: GRAB WHAT YOU CAN—AN EVALUATION OF SPATIAL REPLICATION TO DECREASE HETEROGENEITY IN SEDIMENT EDNA METABARCODING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have responded point by point to each concerns I had. Therefore, I would recommend publication as it is.
Experimental design: The authors have responded point by point to each concerns I had. Therefore, I would recommend publication as it is.
Validity of the findings: The authors have responded point by point to each concerns I had. Therefore, I would recommend publication as it is.
Additional comments: The authors have responded point by point to each concerns I had. Therefore, I would recommend publication as it is.


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: RECOVERY OF ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY IN METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS (MRSA): A RETROSPECTIVE, EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS IN A SECONDARY CARE HOSPITAL, SAPPORO, JAPAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: 1. Please introduce the abbreviations on their first use and only once in the manuscript, for example, the abrreviation 'AUD'. Make sure the abbreviations in the abstract are defined as well.
2. Make sure bacterial genus and species names are italicized.
3. Please check the grammar of the manuscript for minor 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: RECOVERY OF ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY IN METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS (MRSA): A RETROSPECTIVE, EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS IN A SECONDARY CARE HOSPITAL, SAPPORO, JAPAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The manuscript entitled „Recovery of antimicrobial susceptibility in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): Epidemiological analysis using antibiogram in a secondary care hospital, Sapporo, Japan (#55931) deals with the significant problem of protecting antibiotics through their rational use. This manuscript can be published in Peer J but major revision is necessary.

In manuscript instead "MRSA cases" should be "MRSA isolates",
Line 29: please add "AUD" abbreviation,
Line 98: “The present study aimed to clarify the percentage of S. aureus cases caused by MRSA”  - this is not clear,
Line 108: “The hospital is within a 10-minute walking distance from the main station, Sapporo station” - whether this information is relevant and necessary,
The title of Table 2 is not appropriate because it does not correspond to the information contained in this table. In this table showed significant increases of MRSA susceptibility for some antibiotics in tested range of time.
Figure 1 and 2 – instead “% sensitivity” should be “% of sensitive MRSA isolates”.


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: RECOVERY OF ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY IN METHICILLIN-RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS (MRSA): A RETROSPECTIVE, EPIDEMIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS IN A SECONDARY CARE HOSPITAL, SAPPORO, JAPAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I was not able to access the JANIS dataset from the URL provided (https://janis.mhlw.go.jp/report/prefectures.asp): it just gave an error. Please check that a functional URL is provided.
Experimental design: Some description of antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods used should be provided, at least those for primary institution (JR Sapporo Hospital). What were the susceptibility breakpoint values used for each antimicrobial agent, and were consistent breakpoints used across Japan during the study period?
Validity of the findings: Line 175-176: the data for Hokkaido is incomplete and the change is not significant, so should be removed from this sentence.

Line 217: There was NOT a significant recovery of susceptibility to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole at JRSH; the data indicates a significant DECREASE in susceptibility (Table 2). Moreover, based on the Fig. 1 graph, I cannot see how this change can be statistically significant; please check this.
Additional comments: The manuscript is generally clearly written and logically organised, with appropriate reference to relevant literature. The figures and tables summarise the data well. The study satisfactorily compares changes in MRSA susceptibility at JR Sapporo Hospital over a decade with those observed across Japanese hospitals more broadly. As outline below, there are a few areas where it could be improved.

Methods are not usually stated in a title; I’d suggest removing “using antibiogram” from the title.

Line 70: I think “social” should be replaced by “significant health” or something similar.

Is “MRSA percentage” (line 25 and elsewhere) widely understood terminology? It’s not completely obvious percentage of what? It might be worth explaining that it is the percentage of all S. aureus isolates that are resistant to methicillin. Similarly, “the percentage of MRSA that were antimicrobial resistant” (line 147) is also lazy, since all MRSA are antimicrobial resistant (to methicilin). What is actually meant is “the percentage of MRSA that were also resistant to other antimicrobial agents”.

Lines 84-87 and 91-92: I find references to the author’s employment unnecessary, and raise the spectre that interpretations might be influenced by the desire to justify their position.

Lines 105-108: Much of this information is unnecessary.

Line 257: It is not clear if all S. aureus or MRSA is meant. If based on the data presented here it should be MRSA, if the former then suitable references should be cited.

Line 279: remove “be”.

There are a few places where conclusions should be presented more conservatively in my view…

Lines 37 and 284: “revealed the critical potential” might more appropriately be “support the potential”.

Line 223: “is likely to” could more appropriately be “might ”, since there is no direct evidence of a link.

Line 234: “critical” is too strong for the data presented; “interesting” or even “notable” would be more appropriate.


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: EVOLUTIONARY AND ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES INFLUENCING CHEMICAL DEFENSE VARIATION IN AN APOSEMATIC AND MIMETIC HELICONIUS BUTTERFLY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a very well written manuscript.  The introduction provides an excellent explanation and introduction to chemical defense variation and mimicry, especially in butterflies.  The authors clearly lay out their research questions at the end of the introduction section.  The discussion section, however, is too long and should be shortened considerably.

The figures are relevant, but in this version of the manuscript they were not of sufficient quality.  The lines were fuzzy and the text had shadows.  I was confused by Figure 2B, as it appears to be blank on my copy of the manuscript.  The raw data are shared.
Experimental design: The experimental design is well described in the main text and the supplementary material.  I, however, have a few questions and some suggestions to improve the clarity of the findings.

1.  How is it possible to chemically distinguish the cyanogens that were sequestered vs. synthesized?
2.  What is the reasoning behind preservation in MeOH instead of EtOH?
3.  The collection procedure for the plant leaves needs to be justified.  Usually, plant material is preserved instantly on dry ice or in liquid nitrogen to preserve phytochemical properties.  What compounds are being targeted using this type of preservation method?

L102: Should read: …were separated by sex, weighed, and….
L105: How were individuals tracked?
L106: Sampled is not the right word here…maybe stored or preserved?
L110: Specify that cuttings of Passiflora biflora were taken for cultivation?
L126: Should read: …slightly drooped between watering events.
L155: Insert version and date of software used.
L183: It is not clear what the average n refers to here.
L189: Need subject and verb agreement here: concentration…was or concentrations….were.
Validity of the findings: The findings are well presented and the discussion is robust without over speculation.  The discussion is too long and should be made more succinct.  I have a few questions about results and perhaps, if the suggestions are valid, they could be included as another potential explanation.  I also have a few further requests for clarification in the writing.

1.  Is it possible that adult dispersal is occurring along the gradient and collection location of the adult does not reflect the location in which larvae fed?

2.  How long do these butterflies live?  What could be the extent of age distributions?  Could variation also be due to the presence of post-reproductive individuals in the sample?

L297: I am not really clear about the animal model…have I missed something?
L336: Specify butterfly sex rather than plant sex.
L403: Provide an explanation and/or a reference for the dilution effect of the maternal effect.
L475: It would make sense to use “increase in palatability” instead of the double negative “decrease in unpalatability”.
Additional comments: This is an extremely interesting study that shows the extreme complexity of chemical defense evolution in this group of insects.  It was a pleasure to read.  I support acceptance of the manuscript...but I also would suggest very slight modifications as described above.


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

Input:
Title: EVOLUTIONARY AND ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES INFLUENCING CHEMICAL DEFENSE VARIATION IN AN APOSEMATIC AND MIMETIC HELICONIUS BUTTERFLY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided: The authors do a good job highlighting the need for the study, and I wholeheartedly agree! However, some additional background/context and literature references could help fit the study within the broader field of knowledge and make the findings relevant and interesting for a broader readership. Specifically, regarding to the author's main question "what drives the evolution in defensive toxins within and among prey?"

It would be helpful for readers who are less familiar to the study system for the authors to expand this section beginning Page 8 line 78 "Heliconius erato provides an interesting study subject in terms of variation in chemical defenses, warning coloration patterns and mimicry relationships, as it has a diverse array of color forms associated with local color pattern mimicry rings, and is found in ecologically diverse habitats across a large geographic range." Missing citations. Can the authors expand how the colour forms vary and how they are associated with local mimicry rings? This background information is necessary to fully understand differences in selection between the populations of the study but it is lacking.
Highly relevant to this manuscript but not mentioned, is how predators respond to variation in chemical defences. I would love to see the authors discuss how variation itself can be beneficial:
Skelhorn, John, and Candy Rowe. "Frequency-dependent taste-rejection by avian predation may select for defence chemical polymorphisms in aposematic prey." Biology Letters 1.4 (2005): 500-503.
Barnett, Craig A., Melissa Bateson, and Candy Rowe. "Better the devil you know: avian predators find variation in prey toxicity aversive." Biology letters 10.11 (2014): 20140533.
Also relevant but not mentioned, is the potential for variable defences to be maintained through warning signal honesty.
Blount, Jonathan D., et al. "Warning displays may function as honest signals of toxicity." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276.1658 (2009): 871-877.
Blount, Jonathan D., et al. "How the ladybird got its spots: effects of resource limitation on the honesty of aposematic signals." Functional Ecology 26.2 (2012): 334-342.
Arenas, Lina María, Dominic Walter, and Martin Stevens. "Signal honesty and predation risk among a closely related group of aposematic species." Scientific reports 5.1 (2015): 1-12.
Vidal-Cordero, J. M. et al. Brighter-colored paper wasps (Polistes dominula) have larger poison glands. Front. Zool. 9, 20 (2012).
Bezzerides, A. L., McGraw, K. J., Parker, R. S. & Husseini, J. Elytra color as a signal of chemical defense in the Asian ladybird beetle Harmonia axyridis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61, 1401–1408 (2007).
Cortesi, F. & Cheney, K. L. Conspicuousness is correlated with toxicity in marine opisthobranchs. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 1509–1518 (2010).
Page 23 Line 425: "...but there is evidence for variation among predators in traits including perceptual abilities, individual motivation and tolerance to chemical defences." Suggested additional citation: Hämäläinen, Liisa, et al. "Predators’ consumption of unpalatable prey does not vary as a function of bitter taste perception." Behavioral Ecology 31.2 (2020): 383-392.
On the role of unequal defences in mimicry rings, this notable exception where unequal defences can be mutualistic was excluded:
Rowland, Hannah M., et al. "Co-mimics have a mutualistic relationship despite unequal defences." Nature 448.7149 (2007): 64-67.
On the role of maternal effects:
Winters, Anne E., et al. "Maternal effects and warning signal honesty in eggs and offspring of an aposematic ladybird beetle." Functional Ecology 28.5 (2014): 1187-1196.

Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Figure 1 is not of sufficient resolution, small text is illegible.
Figure 1A: In the description, "... in total- and total biosynthesized cyanogenic (CNglc) toxin concentrations..." Is this a typo? What is "total-" ? According to the x-axis label, it is % that is reported rather than the total that is reported. The plant seems to be reported in ug/mg while the butterfly is in %. Why the difference? Can both be in %? Information about the type of plot and error bars is missing.
Figure 1D: Information about the type of plot and error bars is missing.
Figure 2A information about the type of plot and error bars is missing.
Figure 2B is an empty/blank plot.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: On the question: Can some of this variation be explained by environmental gradients or highly divergent habitat types across a wider geographic scale?
In the results, the Ecuadorian population has significantly lower levels of synthesised cyanogens than the Panamanian populations. In the discussion, the authors speculate that this difference might be due to specialisation on a different host plant that provides more cyanogens for sequestration, or alternatively that the more diverse mimicry ring could provide greater protection by a more toxic model species. I wonder if differences in collection and sampling between the two locations could explain the difference? In Panama, wild-caught individuals were used and the sample for analysis included the "body excluding wings and one half of the thorax." However, in Ecuador, the F1 generation was used after being raised in a common garden environment and the sample for analysis included only the thorax. Therefore alternative explanations for the lower levels of cyanogens in the Ecuadorian population could be that 1) Synthesis was not as efficient in the common garden experiment compared to wild-caught individuals 2) cyanogens are stored in higher concentrations in the body parts that were sampled in Panamanian individuals but not form Ecuadorian individuals i.e. head, abdomen and legs. Can the authors discuss this possibility?
Additional comments: This paper was a pleasure to read. It is well-written and easy to follow and fills an important knowledge gap. Some additional background/context and literature references could help fit the study within the broader field of knowledge and make the findings relevant and interesting for a broader readership. I have concerns about comparing Ecuadorian and Panamanian samples with different collection methods, which I described in more detail in the relevant section.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF MENTAL AND SOMATIC STRESSORS ON PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND SEDENTARY BEHAVIOUR IN ADULTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS: A DIARY STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - overall clear, concise, and well written
- line 44 - I'd suggest using the current prevalence of diabetes in Europe rather than projections, they are already stark enough
- line 50 - the WHO reference is the old guidelines, check the new 2020 WHO guidelines - I believe they may have a section on populations with chronic conditions too
- line 74 - could you clarify by what you mean by people T2DM more likely to have a low mood? As in a mood disorder?
- line 256 - I'd drop the first two sentences of the discussion, you only need to state the aims of the current study here then introduce your main findings right away
- in describing the results from each model in the results and discussion, it would be useful to include a clear metric of effect size as well as stating the statistical significance. E.g., higher level of stress was associated with 10 fewer minutes of LPA per day compared to low.
- clearly described objectives and encouraging to see power analysis to support
- line 139 - the accelerometers were shown to be reliable and valid, how? Good to give detail about what you mean by reliable and valid, e.g., is it validated against doubly labelled water etc.? Crucially, is it validated for use in people with T2DM? Do we know the results of the reference validation studies would be generalisable to people with T2DM? Another more technical point is that they can't assess 'sitting', which requires an inclinometer to determine if someone is seated or standing. They can approximate sedentary behaviour - although though many would question its validity of doing so given the validation studies are mostly for MVPA or total physical activity volume. I'd suggest referring only to sedentary behaviour throughout, rather than sitting
- Again, important to clarify when participants wore the accelerometer because your estimation of sedentary behaviour (0-25 CPM) would include sleep. If participants did wear it 24h, you'd have subtracted sleep time I assume?
- line 152 - clarify if the survey completed on a computer? Or tablet/phone? Also, state here what times participants completed the surveys in the morning i.e. it would be helpful to have an idea of where they were/what they were doing at the time, if possible
- line 195 - include a sentence on why you've standardised the age and waist circumference variables here
Experimental design: - line 139 - the accelerometers were shown to be reliable and valid, how? Good to give detail about what you mean by reliable and valid, e.g., is it validated against doubly labelled water etc.? Crucially, is it validated for use in people with T2DM? Do we know the results of the references validation studies would be generalisable to people with T2DM? Another more technical point is that they can't assess 'sitting', which requires an inclinometer to determine if someone is seated or standing. They can approximate sedentary behaviour - although though many would question its validity of doing so given the validation studies are mostly for MVPA or total physical activity volume. I'd suggest referring only to sedentary behaviour throughout, rather than sitting
- Again, important to clarify when participants wore the accelerometer because your estimation of sedentary behaviour (0-25 CPM) would include sleep. If participants did wear it 24h, you'd have subtracted sleep time I assume?
- line 152 - clarify if the survey completed on a computer? Or tablet/phone? Also, state here what times participants completed the surveys in the morning i.e. it would be helpful to have an idea of where they were/what they were doing at the time, if possible
- line 195 - include a sentence on why you've standardised the age and waist circumference variables here This may a little out of scope, but did you consider some form of trajectory modelling for this analysis in addition to the main analysis? It seems to me quite a bit of information loss occurs when using the mean daily scores of mental/somatic stressors - these are dynamic processes that will vary day-to-day. It would be interesting to see if a trajectory model identifies latent subgroups, such as people with highly varying stress, who have different activity patterns to those with a constant experience of high or low stress
- line 196 - the type of day was 'entered into the model' presumably as a confounding variable? Good to clarify this. Also, I don't quite see why it would be a confounding variable in this study. This would assume it is a common cause of both the exposure (mental/somatic stressors) and the outcome (activity). Is there evidence that type of day affects mental/somatic stressors as well as activity? If so, state this too as it isn't clear to me
- Otherwise nice reporting of the statistical analysis, this is a downfall of many papers I come across
- line 211 - great to see consideration of sufficient power for the analysis from simulation studies
- Do you have demographic information on who declined to participate  and who didn't have enough accelerometer data? It would be useful to have a side-by-side comparison with those included in the study (possibly in a supplementary) to assess selection/attrition bias
- tables 3-5 - unless there is a good reason for doing so, I would avoid reporting all the confounding variable coefficients to minimise the risk of Table 2 fallacy. Either move these full tables into the supplementary or remove completely. I'd then combine these tables into one - there isn't really a need to present these models separately, it breaks up the paper unnecessarily
- line 256 - in discussing main findings, also report the null findings, these are interesting too e.g., no association with MVPA
Validity of the findings: - it would be helpful to see a clearer interpretation of the implications here - what do these findings really mean? I'm struggling to make sense of them myself, what do they mean for interventions to promote activity in people T2DM? There were a lot of null findings that could also be of interest - was stress not related to MVPA? Is stress not a factor in the difficulties promoting MVPA then?

- mental health was not adjusted for, which is surprising to me, particularly depression and anxiety symptoms which can explain both the exposure and the outcome. Is the data available? It's hard not to think these findings are highly confounded by existing mental health symptoms

-given time is finite throughout the day, it is strange to find associations between stress and only one activity domain e.g., light but not sedentary or MVPA. The increase in light activity must be coming at the expense of something else, can the authors explain this discrepency? Perhaps a more sophisticated analysis would be more suitable here. Compositional data analysis would handle the time-dependent nature of each activity variables more appropriately
Additional comments: Overall, an interesting study on an interesting - and overlooked - topic. The paper describes the methods and rationale well, with clear and concise language. The analysis is also well described.


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF MENTAL AND SOMATIC STRESSORS ON PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND SEDENTARY BEHAVIOUR IN ADULTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS: A DIARY STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Poppe et al have examined the impact of mental and somatic stressors on physical activity and sitting time in 39 participants with T2D. Participants were asked to wear an accelerometer for 10 days and to fill out a morning diary assessing mental and somatic stressors on each day. Overall, the manuscript is well-written and would make a useful contribution to the literature. I have a few comments, some of which are minor, that limit the interpretation of the findings.
Experimental design: * More information regarding the participants would be helpful. For example, how prevalent were pre-existing co-morbidiites/complications that could have influenced the results?

* Similarly, do you have any information regarding medications? Insulin use is probably important as well as other glucose/cholesterol lowering medications that potentially have side effects related to outcomes
Validity of the findings: * You lose a reasonable amount of people with your restrictions. Do the results change if you include those with only 1 day of accelerometer data? If not, this would allow you to increase your sample size. Limiting to 4 days could always be included as a sensitivity analysis

* Although mean MVPA was high, there appears to be a reasonable degree of variance. I think it would be useful to the reader to report how many of your participants actually reached the current PA recommendations. This may subsequently require some rewording in the introduction to say that adopting or maintaining an active lifestyle is important in the management of T2D.

* It should be mentioned in the limitations that despite adjusting for some potential cofounders, residual confounding or confounding from unmeasured factors remains a possibility
Additional comments: Abstract

* This should stipulate that the analysis included 39 participants. Also, the between subject effect of stress on sitting time should be included. If possible, the results of the linear models should also be included.

Introduction

* Latest WHO guidelines have recently been published. They make specific reference to those with chronic disease and should be included in the introduction.

* It is important to include the Colberg (2016) ADA guidelines in the introduction. They make more specific recommendations regarding sitting time.

* Although the introduction is well written, it incudes superfluous information. In my opinion, removing lines 89-97 would help to streamline

Methods

* There is a need to include accelerometer wear time as a covariate, or present as the % time spent in each behaviour during waking hours.

* Also, I appreciate your numbers are small and adjusting for too many covariates reduces the degrees of freedom, but what is the rationale for not including time since diagnosis as a covariate?

Discussion

*  Line 294 - This seems a bit too speculative. It is more common in T1 and you have no data to suggest any of your participants suffer from gastroparesis.

* Lines 342-346 could be removed, as this text appears again in the conclusions

Minor comments

* Line 105 - I assume they were randomised after wearing the accelerometer?

* Please can you include the accelerometer model


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

Input:
Title: THE IMPACT OF MENTAL AND SOMATIC STRESSORS ON PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND SEDENTARY BEHAVIOUR IN ADULTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS: A DIARY STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors have done a good job in addressing the previous comments. Although the findings/interpretations have changed, I feel the scientific rigour of the manuscript has improved


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

Input:
Title: PHYTOCENOSIS BIODIVERSITY AT VARIOUS WATER LEVELS IN MESOTROPHIC LAKE ARAKHLEY, LAKE BAIKAL BASIN, RUSSIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is written in English and the language should be checked by English native spikier. Literature references are sufficient to demonstrate the work fits in to broader field of knowledge. The weak point that 28 – 29% of referred literature are in Russian. The structure of article is according the standards of PeerJ. Figures and titles of them must be revised, for example Figure 6 is a copy from other article or report. Also supplementary data should be revised, descriptions of data are in Russian and is not clear from with years data are. There is no any reference to the supplementary data in the text of article. There is no define the hypothesis of the research improved with included results.
Experimental design: Research questions and knowledge gaps are defined and clear. Methods have not described sufficiency to be reproducible for other investigators.
Validity of the findings: Data used in this article have been partly published in other articles. What is a novelty of this research? It would be good to see the full version the article “The Effect of Climatic Shifts on Biodiversity of Phytocenosis: Lake Arakhley (Eastern Siberia, Russia)”, International Journal of Ecology & Development (ISSN 0973-7308 (Online)), 2020, Volume 35, Issue Number 3, 77-90” by the same authors where the findings described in the abstract seem exactly the same as in this submitted article.
Additional comments: The aim and data of this research is actual in context of global situation and climate changes in the world. The most data of the mesotrophic Lake Arakhley are available in publications in Russian thus reducing their usability for wider public and should be published in in the international scientific journal. Questionable is a novelty of this research since the same findings can be found in other already published article and there is no reference to it.  Despite the fact that the structure of submitted article is according roles of journal the text in chapters must be revised. Please, see more detailed comments and suggestions with attached pdf file.


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

Input:
Title: PHYTOCENOSIS BIODIVERSITY AT VARIOUS WATER LEVELS IN MESOTROPHIC LAKE ARAKHLEY, LAKE BAIKAL BASIN, RUSSIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Dear authors, thank you for an interesting article. Data provided by authors definitely supplement present knowledge on phytocenoses from aquatic ecosystems. An abstract is clearly written, although I would suggest to start with the sentence " the purpose of this study..." and/or re-organize the text a bit since sentences "this paper presents..." and "the purpose of this study..." are repetitive.
For the field background/context provided I found it too general, hence more baseline/recent examples could be included describing water level fluctuation study cases.
Please check if figures references in the text are corresponding appropriate figures (e.g. line 290  -  there should be figure 7 instead of figure 6), this should be checked throughout the text. Figure 7 needs more explanation/description as to abbreviations used in the figure. Figure 6 - translate y axis from Russian to English.
Line 367 - WLF abbreviation is used. Since it appears just twice and just at the end of the article, I do not find it appropriate form writing style point of view. If this is an important key-word/abbreviation, why not to include it already at the beginning of the article/abstract/key-words.
The main objections however are concerning language and accuracy throughout the text, the sentences are not always clear and easy to understand, what makes it difficult to read and follow the story written. There are writing style differences between literature reference paragraphs and text written by the authors. Line 314, please check if “ultra-continental” is the appropriate expression.
As to accuracy, more comments are given further in other review chapters. E.g. there is extensive amount of raw data given in the supplemental files, still, tables are without captions and descriptions, there are no references given supporting data, neither I found where in the main text authors are referring to supplemental material. Moreover, supplemental tables are not completely translated, column names contain information written in Cyrillic script what will be difficult to understand for future readers. I got impression manuscript has not been ready for submitting, e.g. lines 341  - 354 - should be rewritten to correct writing style, organize text in more comprehensive way, more appropriate when it comes to Latin species name writing (genus names can be abbreviated after first use, however you have to decide on writing style and keep it throughout the text).
Experimental design: The research question is well defined and meaningful. Although study is more descriptive, it still fits well the scope and aim of the journal.
Nevertheless, methods description needs to be improved, it is not clear where exactly in the lake (coordinates or to show in the map) samples were taken from, when (time of the year), how deep were surface level samples (down to 0.5 m or?) and what is a depth of lake bottom sampling (sediments? just above bottom level or?). For hydrochemistry since you are referring to unpublished data, please give more detailed information about methods used - devices, frequency, analytical methods if any etc.
Line 127 - please correct Cyrillic script to Latin alphabet.
Lines 134 - 135 "some...parameters ...were measured with...." - please be more precise -what parameters?
Lines 139 - 140 - reference for Hansen method is not given.
Validity of the findings: The findings are well supplementing existing knowledge of the field. Descriptive chapters are rather long, hence it could be worth considering to present them in the tables and/or figures (this is just a suggestion), e.g. lines 208 - 221, 243 - 252.
Please support your findings by linking/comparing it more to other studies done so far, e.g. lines 355 - 365, this paragraph can be expanded. Since water level changes are the main research question, I would suggest to re-organize discussion part and start with a paragraph on water level fluctuations in order to support results.
Additional comments: I would like to encourage authors to elaborate/correct manuscript and submit again after major revisions.


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: PHYTOCENOSIS BIODIVERSITY AT VARIOUS WATER LEVELS IN MESOTROPHIC LAKE ARAKHLEY, LAKE BAIKAL BASIN, RUSSIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made significant improvement to the manuscript (MS). They have removed from the references a number of Russian untranslated publications, revised Figures and titles. And after revision is clear the purpose and hypothesis of the MS.
Experimental design: Methods have supplemented with additional text, references and now are clear for readers.
Validity of the findings: The validity of the data and findings are explained and proofed with supplement copy of the asked Paper.
Additional comments: Thank you! You have made a great job, your study is very interesting and this article will be an important international contribution and complement to environmental research, especially for the Lake Arakhley.  Anyway I have found some things should be pay your attention, please find them in the separate attached file.


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

Input:
Title: DETERMINANTS OF PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL BEHAVIOR AMONG EXCESSIVE SMARTPHONE USAGE CHILDREN AND MODERATE SMARTPHONE USAGE CHILDREN IN TAIWAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper intends to explore whether the personal norm and social norm can directly affect pro-environmental behavior or indirectly affect by perceived behavioral control between two types of children. They were divided into two groups according to their daily smartphone usage. The topic of this paper is interesting, but I also find some needs to improve.

1.  The authors have better make a comprehensive examination and revision of the language of the manuscript. In line 67-69, the authors stated that “Studies show that children have abandoned physical outdoor activities and their curiosity about the natural environment, which may have direct health and behavioral benefits, and instead spending their time and energy on smartphones” .  In this sentence, “and” is used to connect two sentences, but “spending” is not the predicate of the last sentence. And the clause introduced by “which” is also difficult to understand. The expression of this sentence would better be modified. Similarly, in line 75-77, the authors stated that “However, there are very few studies attempted to combine the two fields of smartphone usage and environmental behaviors together, and explore their relationship”. "And" can be replaced by "let alone", which may be more logical. And in line 77, “investigating specifically” may be better to be replaced by “specifically investigating”. In line 93-94, the authors stated that “ On the other hand, external attributions are causes of behavior result from some situations or events outside a person’s control.”  This sentence concludes two predicates and it is incorrect.

2. In line 87, authors mentioned that “the two key elements involve are: (1) perceived behavioral control, and (2) personal norms.” I hope authors can provide relevant literature.

3. In line 94-96, the authors mentioned that social norms can be classified into two types. I did not figure out the purpose of this sentence, because its connection to the rest of this paper is not clear.

4. Importantly, the attribution theory is the framework of this study, but it does not play a prominent role in the construction of variable relationships. And the authors also did not clearly and sufficiently explain the relationship between key variables of this research. Although authors cited literature behind each hypotheses, the specific relationship and internal logic of each key variable remains unclear. It may be difficult for readers to understand why authors intend to construct that model. Authors should provide more details. For example, both personal norms and perceived behavioral control are key elements of internal attribution. Why do authors suggest PN predict PBC rather than PBC predicted PN?

5. Pro-environmental behavior is a key variable in this research, but the authors do not provide its definition in manuscript.

6. The authors propose ten hypotheses. It can be simplified. For example, the authors could propose that perceived behavioral control plays a mediating role between personal norms and pro-environmental behavior, rather than propose two separate hypotheses. And the authors could discuss more about why they propose these hypotheses.
Experimental design: 1. This research basically confroms with technical & ethical standards. But I noticed that the authors did not mention whether the subjects were paid after completing the questionnaires in line142-162.

2. Line 199-200, the authors stated that “A five-point Likert scale (i.e., 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”) was applied for the measurement in this study.” Does each scale have a five-point score?

3. It is clear and simple to understand the aim of this paper. However, as I mentioned before, the key variable of pro-environmental behavior was not well defined in the manuscript. And the authors did not clearly state the internal logic relationship between the key variables of this research. That has influenced the reliability and meaning of the submission.
Validity of the findings: In Results part, the authors clearly reported their results in detail and it is a strength of this submission. but I also find some small mistakes.

1. In line 287-289, authors stated “In the excessive smartphone usage group (as shown in Table 7), all of the convergent validity, i.e. average variance extracted (AVE) values were above 0.50, and likewise the composite reliability (CR) values were at least 0.70.”  “all of the convergent validity” does not have corresponding predicate and object which could lead to difficulty in reading. The same situation exists on line319-321.

2. In line 297, the authors stated that "the dimensions affected were...". It would be better to be replaced by "affected dimensions". And the authors adopted the last expression in line 327. In addition, the ";" in line 327 is redundant.

3. There are some highly repetitive statements in  Results part and it can be simplified (i.e. line 303-313)

Moreover, after reading the Discussion part, I also have some question.

1. Importantly, I merely find references to support authors' discussion which is harmful to the credibility of this research. For example, in line 406-409, the authors intend to explain the mediating role of perceived control between personal norms and pro-environmental behavior by self-resilience. But authors do not provide references or elaborate on the role of self-resilience, which makes the explanation become faint and powerless. It is necessary to cite related literature to enhance the persuasiveness of the discussion part.

2. In line 364, authors mentioned that “Results suggested that the causal relationship”. It would be better not to write in such an absolute way, because the causal relationship is only a theoretical deduction.

3. In line 377, the authors mentioned that “in countries such as China, Korea, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan”. Taiwan is not an independent country both in China and international, so the expression should be revised.
Additional comments: This research focuses on an interesting topic, aiming to figure out the relationship and internal mechanism between smartphone usage and pro-environmental behavior. The authors have cited many previous literature in their Introduction part, but they do not analyse the relation between their own research and previous studies. In addition, the hypotheses' theoretical basis and logical foundation was faint and the authors should make revision to improve their credibility.


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: ASSOCIATION OF HEAT SHOCK PROTEIN POLYMORPHISMS WITH PATIENT SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE COMORBID DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY IN A CHINESE POPULATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper by H. Wang et al deals with the interesting topic of the gene polymorphisms of HSP70 and HSP90 and their association with comorbid anxiety and depression in Coronary Artery Disease (CAD).

Language:
Despite the good use of English language, there are some points that need linguistic revision :
ll.50-51: the verb is missing before "the higher risks of anxiety" as well as the ending "adjusted".
ll.106: the sentence begins with a reference in parentheses.
ll. 108: the sentence begins with the expression "via inhibiting.." which needs rephrasing.
ll.112: the sentence starts with the expression "in a group of patients.." without being clear to which group the sentence refers to.
ll.124: again a sentence begins with a reference in parentheses.
ll.130: misspelling of "anxiety"
ll.135-136: " overviewed the association" and "proposed that four ..."
ll.269 : "whether adjusted"
Table 2 - "insomnia"
Figure 2-  I believe  that GAD should read GAD-7 and not GAD-9 in the title.

Literature references:
Although well referenced there are some lines where there is mentioning of numerous studies with no references being presented :
ll.89-90; ll.103; ll.106; ll145.

Professional article structure

Well structured, however in the abstract in line 50, the reference to rs1042665  is read at first as belonging to HSP70 polymorphisms and not to HSP90 as is shortly afterwards explained.I believe it should be clarified when initially presenting this polymorphism that it belongs to HSP90.
Moreover, in the abstract the absence of correlation between comorbid depression and HSP gene polymorphism in CAD, leaves the research questions partially unanswered in the results section. I think it should be included in the abstract that no association between depression and gene polymorphism was found in this research.
The raw data, tables are really sound.I
Experimental design: It is an interesting paper that serves the aims and scopes of the journal.
The research question was well defined and covered an interesting topic of the multidimensional  functions of heat shock proteins.
Ethical and technical high standards were followed.
In the methods question, was the diagnosis of depression and anxiety simultaneously completed  by the two psychiatrists? Was the diagnosis only based on the two mentioned inventories? If separate interviews were conducted, was  there an inter-scorer reliability being taken into consideration?
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: ASSOCIATION OF HEAT SHOCK PROTEIN POLYMORPHISMS WITH PATIENT SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE COMORBID DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY IN A CHINESE POPULATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The present manuscript provides important information on Heat shock proteins (HSPs) and the association between HSP70 and HSP90 with CAD patients with depression or anxiety in a Chinese population. In particular, the results indicate that HSP/HSP90 gene polymorphism are associated with anxiety but not depression in CAD patients.

However, before the manuscript can be considered for publication, the authors should address some major points.
Experimental design: •	Please provide explanation related to the criteria for the selection of specific SNPs.
•	Please clarify the number of healthy participants included in the present study (113 derived from a priori statistics versus 171 healthy volunteers). Please explain why the number of healthy participants is lower as compared to CAD patients. In this type of association studies at least the same number of participants is preferred.
•	Present findings present sample characteristics and appropriate comparisons, SNP association analyses (case versus control) but comparison between CAD patients and healthy participants concerning depression or anxiety state is missing. Subsequently a binary logistic regression analysis should be performed to access the variables independently associated with CAD based on the statistically significant results derived from previous comparisons between patients and healthy participants (independent variables for equation).
Validity of the findings: Taken into consideration the afore mentioned points the findings of the present study could be strengthen and discussion section will be essentially enriched.

Conclusions are well stated but limited since the main comparisons/findings  concern subgroups within GAD patients .
Additional comments: The authors should thoroughly address the afore mentioned points.


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: ASSOCIATION OF HEAT SHOCK PROTEIN POLYMORPHISMS WITH PATIENT SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE COMORBID DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY IN A CHINESE POPULATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Discussion should be restructured:
Lines 302-312  and 352-363 better belong to the introduction as part of the literature review and the initial statement of the basic hypotheses . In the discussion section, these lines seem as reiteration of the introductory part of the paper, not promoting the conclusive nature of discussion.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Discussion needs restructuring in order to avoid unnecessary reiterations of literature review and  statement of basic hypotheses.


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: ASSOCIATION OF HEAT SHOCK PROTEIN POLYMORPHISMS WITH PATIENT SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE COMORBID DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY IN A CHINESE POPULATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thea authors have addressed all comments raised by reviewer


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: ASSOCIATION OF HEAT SHOCK PROTEIN POLYMORPHISMS WITH PATIENT SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE COMORBID DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY IN A CHINESE POPULATION
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: You did very good work with the revisions.


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: HPV MOLECULAR DETECTION FROM URINE VERSUS CERVICAL SAMPLES: AN ALTERNATIVE FOR HPV SCREENING IN INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study by Torres-Rojas et al. presents concordance in the HPV detection in urine and cervical samples of 108 indigenous Mexican women. In addition, authors proposed HPV detection in urine as an alternative solution for women not attending cervical cancer. Although, present manuscript has some major shortcomings, it might be very interesting for readers and could influence policy makers. It is necessary to develop and implement alternative methods for women who are not attending cervical cancer screening as they remain at a high risk of developing cervical neoplasia. In low resource settings of indigenous populations urine or vaginal self-sampling for cervical cancer screening could be an interesting solution.
First, manuscript requires editing by professional/native English medical writer. Apart from grammatical errors throughout the manuscript it is sometimes challenging to understand long sentences, especially in the discussion section.  Besides, I have some concerns regarding methodological approach and interpretation of the results/conclusions.

Could authors provide more methodological details regarding sampling and statistical analysis.
How cervical samples were taken? Which device used? How cervical samples were treated? Stored? Conventional cytology or Liquid -based? How urine samples were collected? Was a special collector used? Please provide more details. Were all samples transferred to one central laboratory for the extraction/analysis/storage etc?
How sensitivity and specificity were calculated? I assume HPV detection using INNO-LiPA was used as a reference method. Authors reported PPV, NPV and concordance but have not mentioned this in methods. I am assuming LSIL was used as a disease outcome to calculate PPV and NPV, since no biopsy was done and no histological diagnosis according to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) stage was confirmed. As a pap smear result is not confirmed histological diagnosis it is not recommended to use it as an outcome for such a statistical measure. Moreover, LSIL is not considered as a disease and majority of LSIL cases regress to normal after 12-36 months (Moscicki, Shiboski et al. The Lancet 2004). Therefore, I strongly recommend ether to remove PPV and NPV or to address this major limitation in the discussion and provide more details in methods.
In addition, according to your results HPV detection in urine is more sensitive compared to cervical samples. I am surprised to see HPV positivity 69% and 82% in cervical and urine samples, respectively. Interestingly, the detection rate of multiple infections was two times higher in urine than in cervical samples. One would expect HPV detection in cervical samples to be more sensitive. According to supplementary table 1, HPV16 and HPV39 show highest type specific discrepancy. Could authors explain such discrepant results in the discussion?

Minor changes:
I would recommend describing in a few sentences cervical cancer screening program in Mexico.
I would suggest changing “cervical scraping” to “pap test” as sometimes cervical scaping is referred as a removal of abnormal cervical cells. Wording might be confusing to the reader.
Lines 82-87, very long sentence, please reformulate.
Ln 88 “self-take” do authors mean self-sampling, please change?
What was the proportion recruited by home visits and by calling with a loudspeaker? What is the participation rate by home visits?
Ln 135, why 1.4? Could authors please provide the reference.
Ln 153-158, most of the information could be part of table 1.
Ln 156, it is not shown % of women who do not consume alcohol.
Ln 159 – 161. Please provide exact numbers in methods.
Ln 163-166 please be consistent with decimal points.
Ln 176 please clarify in methods groupings for hr and lr HPV.
Ln 178 “as well as other HPV genotypes not identified”, do authors mean genotypes not covered by the assay? If yes, I do not think it is appropriate to mention this in results.
Ln 185 What does “MI” refer to?
Ln 186-188. The sentence is part of the discussion rather than results.
Ln 190. “Physicochemical characteristics of urine were analyzed”, How this analysis was performed? Please provide more details in methods.
Ln 203-214. I suggest moving the paragraph to the discussion.
Ln 203-206. “the presence of HR-HPV in the urine samples means that the virus is colonizing the vagina and reached the sample by entrainment, which increase the risk that papillomavirus colonize the cervical region at some point.”
Please provide the reference for the statement or remove it.
Presence of HPV in urine indicates that HPV has already infected cervicovaginal cavity. During the urination, first void urine is contaminated with exfoliated cells and mucus (containing HPV) from vagina and cervix. Hence, it is strongly recommended to use first void urine for HPV detection as it contains most of the cervical cells and, therefore, most of the viral DNA(Vorsters, Van Damme et al. BMJ : British Medical Journal 2014).

Ln 209-211. LSIL is not considered a diseases, please change to cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or cervical cancer.
Ln 219-225. Please reformulate, very long sentence.

Table 1, to show the difference between the groups I would suggest using row % rather than col.
As the sample size is very small, I would suggest to combine some categories; for example, number of sexual partners two and there versus one. Menarche ≥ 17 has only two participants, why to keep it separately etc… Please apply to other categories too.
I believe “Caesarea” is in Spanish, please change to C-section.
Table 2. please explain in footnotes what abbreviation mean HPV-LR,HPV-HR, MI HPV-LR/HR
MI HPV-HR , HPV-X. I am not sure I understand what HPV-X means and how it could be detected. For calculation proportions it would be better to separate multiple infections and hr/lr.
Please add total HPV positivity for both urine and cervix. I am not convinced that MI HPV-LR/HR and MI HPV-HR categorization adds value for the table as below authors show multiple infections. What was the range of the number of genotypes detected in urine and cervical samples?
It is interesting that number of multiple genotypes in urine is double compared to cervical samples. Please add statement in discussion. Could it be due to contamination? Did authors include negative and positive controls? How cervical samples were stored and treated? Could it be that DNA is more degraded in cervical samples?

Table 3,4 please add total values for urine HPV detection. Again, it is not recommended to calculate PPV on cytological but histological diagnosis. In addition, as LSIL regression rate is quite high I do not see the added value of PPV and NPV here.

Figure 1. In methods, you indicated that DNA purity in urine should be above 1.4, while figure indicates 1. Please be consistent and provide the reference or explain why 1.4 or 1.

According to European guidelines screening interval after negative cervical test should be at least five years. Therefore, one year screening interval would cause massive over screening. Moreover, women bellow 30-35 years old should not be screened with HPV DNA test. I would recommend to review the figure and adjust the screening interval and age. Finally, low risk HPV detection is not recommended for screening as it could cause over screening and more harm in terms of anxiety and psychological impact rather than benefits (von Karsa, Arbyn et al. Papillomavirus Research 2015, Maver and Poljak Clin Microbiol Infect 2020).
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: HPV MOLECULAR DETECTION FROM URINE VERSUS CERVICAL SAMPLES: AN ALTERNATIVE FOR HPV SCREENING IN INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The abstract is clear and presents all the information required.The use of English can be revised to make the message clearer to the reader. It is suggested the use of shorter sentences. The number of figures and tables is appropriate. Abbreviations must be described in all tables and figure.
Experimental design: This study aimed to compare the concordance in HPV detection from urine and cervical samples from an indigenous population at southern Mexico.The contribution is original and its development may have practical applications in the future using an alternative to cervical scraping. The methodology presented is accurate to address the main goals of this work.
Overall, the results of the present study are not discussed in depth. For comparative purposes, the authors should include more information of HPV detection methodologies in urine.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript addresses a very important public problem.The use of urine samples for HPV genotyping is a non-invasive method that would be a good alternative for the screening of women from indigenous populations that refuse gynecological inspection.
Authors should discuss the costs of implementing urine collection and HPV genotyping using the methodology described.
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: HPV MOLECULAR DETECTION FROM URINE VERSUS CERVICAL SAMPLES: AN ALTERNATIVE FOR HPV SCREENING IN INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors addressed reviewers concerns and the manuscript has significantly improved.
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: HPV MOLECULAR DETECTION FROM URINE VERSUS CERVICAL SAMPLES: AN ALTERNATIVE FOR HPV SCREENING IN INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have done a god job in addressing all the comments.
Experimental design: The authors have done a god job in addressing all the comments.
Validity of the findings: The authors have done a god job in addressing all the comments.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: SHIFTS IN GUT AND VAGINAL MICROBIOMES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CANCER RECURRENCE TIME IN WOMEN WITH OVARIAN CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Figures and tables require clarification. As it is currently written, what is stated in the manuscript is not readily concluded from the figures and tables provided.  Please see my specific comments to the authors.
Experimental design: The authors have a very interesting area of research, but I think their questions need clarifying. For example, the authors jump around from comparing PFI groupings to gross residual and then to Lactobacillus species content without explaining why these changes are made. In addition, the methods section would benefit from a study flow chart which describes how patients were included/excluded, when sampling occurred, and which treatments they received. Please see my comment to the authors for specific suggestions.
Validity of the findings: The authors need to report all p-values, not just the significant ones. I would recommend adding p-values to figures where appropriate and in supplemental tables if necessary.

There is no mention of depositing the sequence data in a public repository.
Additional comments: This is a retrospective study describing the vaginal and gut microbiomes of women undergoing treatment for ovarian cancer. The authors find that there are fewer women that have lactobacillus dominant vaginal microbiomes compared to previous studies. They also found a higher amount of Prevotella in the fecal microbiomes of these women.

Although I do think this study is interesting and important, I am not recommending publication at this time. There are some large wholes that need to be addressed before the conclusions of this study can be fairly reviewed. I describe specific issues below, but generally, this manuscript is missing methods, not all p-values are provided, and there are multiple issues with labelling graphs and figures. Often what is stated in the manuscript is not readily concluded from the figures and tables provided. However, I do think that most of the issues can be easily fixed. Once complete, I would recommend a second review process.

• Please be consistent in the groups that you are comparing. At some times you compare based on PFI, sometimes based on gross residual, and later on in the manuscript you compare based on Lactobacillus species. Make it clear why you are changing from one thing to another. Additionally, if you find a result that is significant in one comparison, please provide evidence that it is or is not significant in another comparison (e.g. Lactobacillus species vs PFI or gross residual).

• Please provide a table of *all* p-values that you have. A lot of p-values are stated in the text but are not listed in any figures or tables. I do not know how many comparisons were made if there was correction for type 2 error, or if anything else was significant that was not explicitly stated in the text.

• Table 1: Please change this to a summary statistics table.
     o Three are 58 samples in that table, it is too many to be of any value. And all of this information (plus more) is provided in table S1. Please provide a summary statistics table. Or provide summary statistics for the compared groups (e.g. PFI>24 (n = 23), PFI<6 (n = 17), and benign (n = 5)). And then show what significant differences these groups have to one another (are they the same age, medical history, etc).
     o Please make the formatting more readable. For example, the words are broken up in almost every column heading, and provide whole numbers (no decimals) for the ages.

• Please provide a study flow chart including the total patients screened, any excluded patients, when the samples were collected, and what treatments happened during the study. The methods section tries to explain that verbally, but it is unclear where the samples were taken. A flow diagram would clarify the process. For example, one part of the methods describes that the patients were recruited after they had been diagnosed as platinum resistant or super sensitive, but then later it describes that the patients were treated for 6-8 cycles. Is that total cycles or cycles post treatment? Were the samples collected before 6 cycles and after how many other cycles? Or were patients only treated if they had recurrence? A flow diagram will help with each of these questions. This diagram could also go into the supplemental data.

• Please describe the hormone status of your patient population in your summary statistics table and provide a comparison of the vaginal microbiomes to hormone status. As you state in the discussion, it is known that Lactobacillus levels are higher when estrogen is present, but you don’t describe the hormone state of these women during the study (+/- hysterectomy, menopause status, etc). Are all of these women estrogen negative? If so, that would go a long way to explaining the low level of Lactobacillus dominant vaginal profiles.

• Can you comment on the specific species of Lactobacillus you found in the vagina. L. brevis, L. mucosae, and L. zaea, are very uncommon species in healthy reproductive aged women or in healthy post-menopausal women. Is there anything known about these species and the vaginal microbiome? You have a nice description of L. iners in your discussion and describe that this species has both positive and negative associations. However, you do not touch on L. rueteri, and L. delbrueckii which are common in women’s health probiotics. I noticed in Supp Table 1 that you did collect information on probiotic use. Did you find any correlation between the detection of these species and probiotic use? Did you check which probiotics these women had taken (oral vs vaginal, brand or specific species?)

• In line 336 you state that L. iners is significantly higher abundance in patients with no or small residual disease. Do you do that same comparison with Lactobacillus genus as a whole? Also please fix the typo in the species name in this line.

Minor corrections:
• Please provide a figure description for each of the supplemental figures.

• Fig S1A-C:
- Instead of showing this as 3 2-D PCA plots, try visualizing this data as a 3D PCA plot with the axes of PC1, PC2, and PC3.
- In line 206-207 you state that the different vaginal sites showed similar beta-diversity. However, it is difficult to confirm this from figure S1A-C. In a 3D graph, potentially connect the related samples with a lines (making a triangle of samples). Or potentially show this in some other way.
- Line 208 – how did you group these 3 samples together? Did you take an average of each OTU? Please specify in the methods.

•Fig S2A-B:
- Please label panel A or B as vaginal microbiome at phylum and genus levels
- Please include the phylogenetic tree used to generate this figure. Why do the E. coli dominant samples in Panel A (ocm088, ocm106, ocm003) not cluster together? If these samples are not grouped by phylogenetic similarity please explain why and by what method they are grouped.

• Fig 1:
- Please explain the color coding labelled “Abundance (thousands)”. What does green, orange and purple indicate. The methods section mentioned that these samples were rarefied to 9000 reads, so are you trying to indicate the percentage of 9K that that particular genus represents?
- Please also include the phylogenetic trees that provide the sample clustering.
- Line228 – you point to this figure when describing which PFI groups the E. coli dominant profiles belonged to. However, the PFI groups are not listed in this figure.

• Fig S3:
- Again, this figure would benefit from a written description. I’m unclear what this bar chart represents. Is this the average profile of all the benign samples, PFI< 6, or PFI>24 samples? If so, please describe how you merged the samples in your methods section.
- In line 223, you say that 5 of the 6 Eschericia dominant communities IDed belonged to the PFI<6 months group, and you reference this figure. But I do not get any data representing how many patients (N of 5 or N of 20) are in each group. Please be sure that what you state in your manuscript has direct evidence that can be quickly understood by studying the corresponding figure.
- I think it would be nice to have this figure be more like Fig S2 with each individual patient’s profile next to each other. But grouped by PFI grouping. Alternatively you could modify figure S2 to include all of that information. Under each sample indicate which PFI group and which CST it belongs to.

• Fig 2:
- This figure has more demographic information that what is shown in Table 1. For example, you list the odds ratio for hormone disorder, antibiotics use, and Vit B and D supplementation. Yet these numbers do not occur in the summary statistics. It would be helpful to have that information in the summary statistics table, particularly if it is re-organized to be grouped by PFI grouping.
- The P-values comparing these odds ratios are not given. Please provide a table including all comparisons.

•Supplementary text: Thank you for providing a concise and rigorous argument as to why the E. coli was not an environmental contaminant.

• Line 238:
- How did you get this p-value? What groups are you comparing here and how are you comparing to a previously published study?

• Line 255:
- You specifically state that you found 6 different lactobacillus species in your study, but up to this point I have not seen anything that was classified to the species level. Please provide data showing the lactobacillus species distribution across your study.

• Line 262:
- This entire paragraph is still describing the odds ratios in figure 2 and should be moved up ahead of the paragraph describing the lactobacillus species distribution.

• Figure 3:
- Why the focus suddenly switch from PFI to gross residual disease?
- Was this comparison done for all Lactobacillus species and all demographic characteristics?
- Was there any difference in Lactobacillus species and PFI groups?
- Please italicize genus and species names in the figure description.

• Figure S5A-B:
- Again, please label with the phylogenetic trees used to generate the order of these bar charts. And explain the difference between panels A and B. It would also be helpful if there was some indication of the PFI grouping and vaginal microbiome CST.

• Figure S6A-C:
- Again, try presenting this data as a single 3D graph with lines or clouds indicating PFI groupings.

• Line 283:
- Again, where did you get this p-value from? Please provide a table of p-values from all comparisons done. If you report a single significant p-value but no others, then I have no way of assessing if there were other p-values that were not significant or maybe some that were but were not reported.

• Line 285:
- Please clarify that there was lower *fecal* phylogenetic diversity.


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: SHIFTS IN GUT AND VAGINAL MICROBIOMES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CANCER RECURRENCE TIME IN WOMEN WITH OVARIAN CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: It doesn’t appear that the data or code were made available with the paper. The authors should make the data and code available, especially to the reviewers.

As a minor point, something may have gone wrong with the submission of figure 1. I was unable to read any legend or labels. It would be helpful if the authors updated this figure.
Experimental design: At line 206-210, it was interesting to see that the samples from the different vaginal sites were pooled before downstream analysis. Was there a statistical or other reason why the samples needed to be pooled? Are the authors worried about loosing signal by pooling the samples, even though they were compositionally similar by beta-diversity measurement? It would be helpful if the authors clarified the reasoning for this method in the text.

The data in figure S4 does not look linear, so it leaves the reader to wonder if this was the most appropriate method. Did the authors consider something like a cubic polynomial regression approach? If the linear model really is the best fit, it would be helpful for the authors to add some clarifying text indicating that other approaches were considered, but linear was most appropriate.
Validity of the findings: I appreciate that the authors wanted to highlight some visible differences despite their lack of statistical significance, but this made the paper confusing to read when the p-values were not cited, especially in the discussion section. For the sake of clarity, I recommend that the authors add p-values for each piece of comparative language, which mostly applies to the discussion section (for example, line 335 - 338). This would make it clearer to the reader and avoid the need to keep turning back to the results section to check the statistics values.
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: SHIFTS IN GUT AND VAGINAL MICROBIOMES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CANCER RECURRENCE TIME IN WOMEN WITH OVARIAN CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: I have some very minor editorial suggstions:

The new figure 1 looks great
For figure 3 legend, please provide the p-value for the Gross Residual >1cm, even if it is not significant.
Please go through and double check proper italicization for species names. Particularly in the figure legends.
There is a small typo on Line 349: the word environment, the r is a superscript
Additional comments: I'm pleased with the changes the authors 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: SHIFTS IN GUT AND VAGINAL MICROBIOMES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CANCER RECURRENCE TIME IN WOMEN WITH OVARIAN CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The authors adequately addressed the reviewer comments. The manuscript has improved and the conclusions are appropriate.


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: KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CERVICAL CANCER AND AWARENESS ABOUT HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINATION AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS IN JORDAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The language of the article is clear, understandable and technically correct text. The article conform to professional standards of courtesy and expression.
The article, include introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Suggested additions should be made in the introduction.
The structure of the article on form to an acceptable format of ‘standard sections’ . Tables is relevant to the content of the article.  All appropriate raw data have been made available in accordance with your Data Sharing policy.
The submission is include all results relevant to the hypothesis.
Experimental design: The article is original research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It have been stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
This investigation was performed to a  technical & ethical standard.
Methods are defined but not sufficient. The method of the study (scoring the qestions) may not be used by other investigator.
Validity of the findings: Impact and novelty not assessed.
The results of the study are widely known and expected results. The definition of the results is important but not a novelty.
All underlying data have been provided.
Conclusions are stated, linked to original research question.
Additional comments: I commend the authors for their extensive data set. Student information level section in the survey does not include the 3th year (4,5,6) option. Can be added for other researchers.
In addition, the manuscript is  "Knowledge about cervical cancer and awareness about human papillomavirus vaccination among medical students in Jordan" is addressing a current issue. The weakness strengths of the article is related to generally the method section (as I have noted below).
- It should be stated in the article that random sample selection was made to reach the determined sample (actually my suggestion:In order to reach the determined sample number, the systematic sampling method  must be used to identify respondents from each level).
- It is stated that the scoring of the knowledge and awareness questions created according to the literature information was made by the authors. In the article, no information was found regarding the content validity (expert opinion and cronbach's alpha value) and reliability of these questions. If it is, it should be added to the article. This is important for the accuracy of the measurement of the questions.
- The total number of students in all faculties should be given.
- in Statistical Analysis section, line 180: "Chi square was used to analyze" statement is stated. However, this analysis was not seen in the article.
- Also, "Student's t-test was used to compare the means between two groups" was made. This situation is expressed in the conclusion section and findings are given. However, it was determined that it was not shown as a table. These analysis results should also be shown in a table Showing these findings in the Table may increase the attention of the researchers.
Recommendations outside the method section:
-Your listing needs a little more detail. To provide more justification for your study, examples of studies on medical students' knowledge and awareness of HPV can be given after 118 lines. I suggest you improve the explanation on whether it is being done for the first time with medical students in Jordan. Also, the first paragraph in the discussion section contains information. I recommend it to be included in the introduction (between 243-256 lines).
- Sources compared in the discussion should be similar studies. For example, Discussion section, line 252-253:"In the current study, general CC and HPV knowledge was moderate which was similar to the result of a study done on nurses in Thailand [18]". The results of the work done on students should be compared instead of the 18th source used in the discussion. In addition, 30 referances are a study done only for female 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: KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CERVICAL CANCER AND AWARENESS ABOUT HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINATION AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS IN JORDAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language should be check on by a professional translator.
The Introduction of the manuscript has to be modified. I suggest that author
to provide more data about other oncogenic HPV types in the world that are connected with CC and about types of vaccines against HPV, at lines 92, 96- 97 .
Is there any type of vaccine against HPV in Jordan? Is the vaccination against HPV mandatory or just a recommendation ? Is it only for girs? What about vaccination of boys?
The manuscript has the Introduction, the Objective, Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion.
Table 3. Check the sum of percentage on the 4th and the 5th question. The sum is not 100%.
Both figures shuld be modified to be more clear. For example: 28% above the column, and below the line of the graph, the legend shoul be placed: Percentage (%)

No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Very Respected author,
In order to improve Your manuscript I suggest to modifie the Introduction and to add more data about types of oncogenic HPV, more about type of vaccines  aginst HPV, and more data about HPV screening and about Pap test.


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: KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CERVICAL CANCER AND AWARENESS ABOUT HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINATION AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS IN JORDAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: yeah English language is good, Literature references has been cited well. tables and figures are also good
Experimental design: Yeah experimental design is good, Method has been explained properly.
Validity of the findings: i checked on PubMed about previously published article related to Knowledge about cervical cancer in Jordan peoples. There are some publication about related topic but no reported Knowledge about cervical cancer among medical students in Jordan. therefore i think this study can be considered for publication.
Finding are good but i suggest them to discuss the results with more detail.
Please explain knowledge and vaccine acceptance gaps among rural and urban peoples, also explain the difference of knowledge and vaccine acceptance gaps among Level of Education
Additional comments: This is good study but it need to revised before acceptance
Please add results about Knowledge about cervical cancer and vaccine acceptance  gaps among medical students with rural or urban background.
also results about knowledge and vaccine acceptance gaps among Level of Education,  nationality, family income etc.
Please why medical students do not know about availability of HPV vaccine in Jordan. Explain the reason and discuss it accordingly.
Pleaser  discuss Table 3: Participant’s awareness and acceptance of HPV vaccination (n=504) results in detail.


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: KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CERVICAL CANCER AND AWARENESS ABOUT HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINATION AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS IN JORDAN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors significantly improved their manuscript. I do not have any negative comments.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CERVICAL CANCER AND AWARENESS ABOUT HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINATION AMONG MEDICAL STUDENTS IN JORDAN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Revised version has been improved according to suggestions
Experimental design: now Experimental design has been explain accordingly
Validity of the findings: Findings are interesting for the readers
Additional comments: No additional comments