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 EARLY MIOCENE BALAENID MORENOCETUS PARVUS FROM PATAGONIA (ARGENTINA) AND THE EVOLUTION OF RIGHT WHALES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Some minor grammatical and spelling issues are present and the text would benefit from some language editing in places.
Experimental design: Se below.
Validity of the findings: See below.
Additional comments: This manuscript by Buono et al. provides a long-awaited redescription of the early right whale Morenocetus parvus from the lower Miocene of Argentina. Right whales have often been interpreted as being the most conservative extant baleen whales owing to this species and its early occurrence, predating most other families by nearly 10 My. This paper includes a well-written, detailed, and long overdue morphological description of Morenocetus as well as a reconsideration of the history of certain hallmark anatomical features of balaenids and a phylogenetic analysis.

I have no major concerns with the manuscript and think that it deserves publication. I have a list of minor comments below, and suggest minor revision. Some English language editing is necessary for some sections - but note that with a few exceptions, the language does not seem to impact clarity.

Congratulations to Monica and colleagues on getting this manuscript completed!

Kind regards, R.W. Boessenecker, Ph.D.

46: change to "Balaenids have been considered"
51: replace cf with "in comparison to"
53: Extremely large head: perhaps give some brief statements on cranial length as a percentage of body length
54: length of baleen plates in meters?
69: confirmed by whom? In the spirit of thoroughness, a few citations for previous phylogenetic analyses to have included Morenocetus would help.
120: is MLP 5-21 Pleistocene or Holocene instead? Be specific.
135-136: "to avoid its destruction" do the authors mean that removing the periotic would cause irreparable damage, either to the earbone, or the skull?
141: delete the comma after ’specimens'
142: change "based" to "description focused"
171: "list of characters was modified..." how? how many characters were removed? how many added? why? A separate section of text outlining and justifying these changes is necessary.
199: could BZW be estimated and scaled based on ratios of BZW to exoccipital width in other balaenids?
Geologic setting: I thank the authors for including an informative stratigraphic column and not shying away from geological context.
280: narrow exposure; report as a % of exoccipital width?
281: change deeply to deep
288: quantify this as a % of postorbital or exoccipital width.
292: change to "crest-like parieto-squamosal suture"
297: narial process of frontal
299: lateral tuberosity of the periotic? please clarify
304: lateral hypertrophy of the body of the periotic?
307:  supramastoid crest extending all the way to tip of zygomatic? please be more specific about the condition in Eubalaena and Balaena.
312: Differs; "ths" to "the"
313: frontal gradually sloping away ventrolaterally
314: half of distance: unclear, please clarify.
373: does not reach the level of the preorbital process?
386: approximately
388: delete the extra comma after 774.
442: Which neck flexor muscles? Be specific - Schulte 1916 might be a good enough reference.
466: hamuli
473: in comparison to what other taxon?
481: I think there's an extra space between 774 and the comma
498: alisphenoid
517: I notice that the authors use both "periotic fossa" and the problematic term cranial hiatus. According to Mead and Fordyce 2009 the latter term is poorly defined and they introduced the term periotic fossa to replace it; are the authors using it in the correct sense, or as the pit that the periotic sits within?
527: Should an unpublished thesis be cited here? I personally don't think so.
562: I strongly think that the "frontal ridge" proposed here is the orbitotemporal crest, which has shifted anteriorly within Crown Mysticeti. Many stem balaenopteroids like Parietobalaena and Pelocetus have an orbitotemporal crest shifted anteriorly on the frontal. It's been a while since I have read relevant literature on muscle insertions on mysticete crania, but I recall that a dissection of Caperea prior to the 2013 Marine Mammal conference in Dunedin revealed that the temporalis inserted upon the entire dorsal surface of the supraorbital process of the frontal, terminating at a low ridge at the same position as what I have identified as the orbitotemporal crest.
577: change to "in extant balaenids"
586: dorsally concave?
615: change in to "to be"
626: obtuse angle - please quantify
684-685: suprameatal part of periotic not hypertrophied - Morenocetus appears to still have quite a large body of the periotic. This should be quantified, perhaps as a maximum transverse width expressed as a percentage of pars cochlearis width. Relative to an eomysticetid, the body of the periotic is enormous.
687: change specialized to derived?
718: unclear
812: A relevant citation that should probably be cited here for correct skull orientation as far as interpreting skull morphology is Yamada et al. 2006: Memoirs of the National Science Museum, Tokyo 44:1-10.
865: change to "exhibits"
876: derivate to derived
878: change to "hypertrophied body of periotic"
890: change to "major mysticete clades"
893-894: "this..." please rephrase.
894: Aquitanian or Burdigalian?
897-898: Unclear. Figure 13 is a picture of skulls; does this refer to Fig. 14? What is the taxonomic inclusion of Balaenopteroidea? Which balaenopteroids are present in the Chattian and Aquitanian? Some citations of specific examples should be provided in the text since these questions arise from lack of clarity in the figure and caption.
900: occur
942: The authors should include a table of Aquitanian and Burdigalian mysticetes, summarizing the lower Miocene record.
950: citations needed.
952: Paleobiology database is not a reasonable source to cite. Please cite published articles.
946-952: A recent paper by RE Fordyce and myself reports an eomysticetid from the lowermost Miocene of NZ and makes some of the same statements provided here in the "Pending Issues" section, and may be a worthwhile citation. RW Boessenecker and RE Fordyce, 2017. Cosmopolitanism and Miocene survival of Eomysticetidae (Cetacea: Mysticeti) revealed by new fossils from New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics DOI: 10.1080/00288306.2017.1300176


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 EARLY MIOCENE BALAENID MORENOCETUS PARVUS FROM PATAGONIA (ARGENTINA) AND THE EVOLUTION OF RIGHT WHALES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Professional English used throughout. Methods and discussion not completely unambiguous. Important changes to be made as in the General comments for the authors.
Literature references are mainly correct. Some additional citations needed as suggested . Field background and context are provided correctly in most of the cases but with some necessary changes to be made.
The article structure is OK. Some problems with a few figs as suggested in the General comments for the authors.
The paper is self-contained. Relationships between hypotheses and results to be revised by the authors.
Experimental design: Original primary research within aims and scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant and meaningful. The paper fills an important knowledge gap as a redescription of Morenocetus is very welcome task in the field.
The investigation is mostly rigorous but fails in a number of points as discussed in the General comments to the authors.
Methods are described with sufficient detail about some aspects. Other aspects need clarifications.
Validity of the findings: The description of Morenocetus is surely an important and valid finding. Anatomical data are robust and controlled. Other aspects need clarification. See General comments to the authors.
Conclusion are well stated as far as anatomy and phylogeny are concerned. Other aspects (i.e., reconstruction of body size) to be clarified and discussed in better way.
Additional comments: I think that the a new description of Morenocetus parvus would be very welcome. All the students of mysticete phylogenetics would be happy to have such a description made in modern terms and with current criteria. Unfortunately, there is a number of issues that have to be made clear or that need additional scientific research. I will be more explicit below. Moreover, the newly added texts required a new review round that resulted in the need for further clarification in many points. I am sorry if this will delay the publication of this manuscript but I honestly feel the changes I request are really necessary. I will try to be highly specific in my review and will provide also illustrations to better express my thoughts.
Review of “The early Miocene balaenid Morenocetus parvus from Patagonia (Argentina) and the evolution of right whales” by Mónica R. Buono, Marta S. Fernández, Mario A. Cozzuol, Jose I. Cuitiño, and Erich M. G. Fitzgerald

The manuscript is now improved as far as the English is concerned and the new details added provide better quality and clarity. There are still some parts of the manuscript that, in my opinion, need to be changed in order to better present the scientific content and to ameliorate readers’ understanding. I will discuss these below. The line numbers are based on the Word file with tracked changes.
1.	A new paper was recently published dealing with a revision of “Balaena” belgica that established the new species Eubalaena ianitrix (Bisconti et al. 2017, PeerJ). The authors cited such a paper several times in the text but they still use “Balaena” belgica in their text. Unless they can provide a criticism to the taxonomy of Bisconti et al. (2017), they must change “Balaena” belgica into Eubalaena ianitrix throughout the text and in Fig. 12.
2.	In the differential diagnosis, the authors must make comparisons to Eubalaena ianitrix.
3.	In Fig. 12, the authors must change Eschrichtius gastaldii into Eschrichtioides gastaldii unless they can justify their assignment to Eschrichtius.
4.	In Fig. 13, the premaxilla of Balaenella  is still drawn imprecisely. I attach an image for giving the authors an idea of what I am saying (Fig. R1). Moreover, it is not clear how they reconstructed the length of the rostrum of this species given that its anteriormost portion is not preserved. Finally, the dorsoventral diameter of the maxilla in lateral view approaching the lateral process is undersized with respect to the photographs published in the original description. Based on that, the reconstruction of this skull is not done thoroughly, in my opinion, and should be done more precisely or removed.
5.	Line 90. It is not clear to me why the authors did not cite also Bisconti (2000, Palaeontographia Italica, 87: 37-66), Churchill et al. (2012, Marine Mammal Science, 28: 497-521), and Bisconti et al. (2017, PeerJ) in the comprehensive analyses of mysticete phylogeny focusing on balaenids.
6.	Lines 171-175. To be honest, I did not find any reference to the specimens you dissected or analysed to understand the pattern of sutural closure in balaenids in the Supplementary Information. You should provide (at least in the form of a table in the Supplementary Information) the specimens you analysed (species, repository and number), their ages and the pattern of sutural closure observed in each of them. I note that Welsh and Berta dedicated a whole paper to this subject while you are discussing it very quickly and without providing the necessary information. Otherwise, we simply have to trust you. We could do that but it is not a scientific procedure in a strict sense.
7.	Line 206. In the revised text, the authors write about “dissection of extant balaenids”. What balaenids? From the manuscript, it seems that only specimens of Eubalaena australis were dissected. Is this correct? What about the other species of Eubalaena? What about Balaena mysticetus? It seems that only character 1 was tested with Balaena mysticetus. If the authors do not have data about these species, they should carefully apply their method to the fossil specimens as a significant taxonomic sample of living balaenids was not tested. I strongly recommend to use a more dubitative textual communication approach undermining that your results (regarding the orientation of the skull) are acceptable if the landmarks can be applied to all the living balaenids at least. Unfortunately, currently that is not known and the resulting orientations may be not as precise as desirable. I guess that this point will be the focus of criticisms by other authors if published as is, especially because the authors are very bold about their own results.
8.	Line 211. accurate reconstruction of the branching order of the sister groups may influence the reconstruction of character state evolution. The authors have to be aware that their work results in a hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships of Mysticeti with focus on Balaenidae. They decided to order some characters thus suggesting that a number of evolutionary trajectories are known (which should be demonstrated). Thus they accept that Balaenopteridae and Eschrichtiidae are merged together. They have to remark this in the text.
9.	Line 226. It is a pity that the present authors pruned the original dataset as Wagner (2000, Evolution, 54: 365-386) and Heath et al. (2008, Journal of Systematics and Evolution, 46: 239-257) convincingly argued that more taxa are highly useful in the reconstruction of phylogenies in groups whose diversity is mainly formed by extinct taxa. Including more taxa should increase the probability to retrieve the correct phylogeny. I strongly suggest to include the whole dataset by McGowen et al. (2008) and Marx and Fordyce (2015).
10.	Line 352. Actually, there are three different specimens of Balaenula that have been assigned to two different species and to an unnamed taxon. These are Balaenula balaenopsis, Balaenula astensis and the Balaenula sp. from Japan. As the taxonomy of these three specimens is debated, in the diagnosis, the authors should state clearly which is the Balaenula they are comparing to Morenocetus or they should state which definion of Balaenula they are referring to.
11.	Line 665. Change disecction in dissection.
12.	In the comparative skull morphology, comparisons to Caperea and Miocaperea would be useful because Morenocetus resembles these species closely in the high position of the orbit, in the lateral exposure of the posterior process of the periotic and in some aspects of the supraoccipital morphology (especially the anterior border).
13.	Line 888. The authors shows that the narial process of the frontal is present also in Balaenula astensis and use this character as a synapomorphy of a larger clade. I attach here a figure illustrating the different morphologies of the narial process of the frontal in Balaenula astensis, Balaenella brachyrhynus and Balaena mysticetus supporting the view that these three taxa exhibit at least two different morphologies of this character (Fig. R2). Based on that, I suggest that the authors have to subdivide the character about the narial process into two different characters: 1) presence/absence of the narial process; 2) relative development of the narial process (short/elongate). In this way, they can correctly represent the morphological diversity of this feature in balaenids.
14.	Line 902. To my knowledge, based on direct examination of several specimens, the crest at the parietal-squamosal suture is not present in Eubalaena glacialis and Balaenula astensis. Is this proposed synapomorphy a result of character optimization made by the computer program or the authors actually found such a crest in specimens of these species? Being positive the second option, please, cite repository and numbers of the specimens because that would be very useful to other authors.
15.	Line 1127. Actually, Balaenella is not a historical form as it was described for the first time in 2005. Balaenula astensis received two different revisions in 2000 and 2003 based on computer-assisted phylogenetic analyses and morphological re-descriptions in modern terms. It is evident that the authors do not agree with these descriptions and revisions, and this is OK, of course. However, in my opinion, they should re-phrase this last sentence in order to avoid to be in error by considering Balaenella a historical form. I suggest them to mention Balaenula balaenopsis and Balaena primigenia, as examples of historical forms.
16.	 In the Supplementary Information, List of the specimens studied for the anatomical and phylogenetic analysis, please, note that Balaenula astensis preserves both periotics and both tympanic bullae (Bisconti 2003, Cranium 20: 9-50).
17.	The same list is presented in an inconsistent way: some specimens are associated to a list of materials while others are merely cited. A consistently compiled list would be more useful to understand what exactly you examined.
18.	Literature cited in Supplementary Information not in alphabetical order. The authors have to write it in alphabetical order.
19.	The last point I want to discuss is about the reconstruction of the body size of Morenocetus and, more generally, the way the authors discuss their work and the work of other authors. In fact, in my opinion, this is a case in which the discussion is made in a misleading way and gives the readers ambiguous information.
The authors insist that the method developed by Pyenson and Sponberg (2011) is the best available method at the moment. This is certainly true about the reconstruction of body size in basal mysticetes and balaenopteroids; this is certainly not true about balaenids. In fact, such a method consists in an regression equation developed from a large dataset of mysticete measurements that, unfortunately, does not include a single balaenid specimen. As a wealth of published literature recognizes that the body proportions of balaenids are different from the other mysticete families, it is obvious that one should not expect that such an equation can retrieve accurate results for balaenids. In the introduction of the present manuscript (line 54 in the newly added text), the authors acknowledge that one of the characterizing features of living balaenids is their body proportions in which the head is about one-third of the total body length. This character is not observed in any other mysticete. The head length:body length ratio is based on a large number of measurements available in early literature and summarized in more recent papers (Cummings 1985, Handbooks of marine mammals, vol. 3, pp. 275-304, Academic Press; Reeves and Leatherwood 1985, Handbooks of marine mammals, vol. 3, pp. 305-344, Academic Press) and is usually accepted as a matter of fact.
I appreciate that the authors of the present manuscript recognized that the Pyenson and Sponberg (2011) equation was not specifically developed for balaenids (line 247). However, I strongly disagree with the statement in the rebuttal letter in which the authors state that “there is no basis for assuming that ‘the results are expected to be wrong’”. In fact, the results are expected to be wrong because: (1) living balaenids (and we can measure only complete skeletons from the living species) have different head:body length ratio from other mysticetes and (2) the Pyenson and Sponberg equation is not based on balaenids. Thus, the Pyenson and Sponberg equation provides results compatible with an expected head:body length ratio different from that of balaenids.
In the rebuttal letter, the authors write also that “this equation was recently applied with success to Balaenidae in a major synthesis of mysticete body size evolution (Slater, Goldbogen and Pyenson 2017)”. However, Slater et al. (2017) did not provide the original dataset of the measurements they used to base the equation used in their paper; they provided only a table with the estimated body lengths of a number of mysticetes. Therefore, it is not possible to know if their equation is based on a dataset including balaenids or not. In this sense, their reconstructions of the body sizes of balaenids is hard to accept as presented in such a paper. In the end, the use of that equation in other papers is not per se a source of support for the validity of the equation itself.
In my opinion, the authors may publish their results in the way they want bearing in mind that this means that their paper will be prone to strong criticism in future publications by other authors.
Another aspect of the text about the reconstruction of Morenocetus body size is around the discussion of the paper by Bisconti et al. (2017). From the present manuscript, it seems that Bisconti et al. (2017) used alternative methods to the Pyenson and Sponberg equation and that they accepted the results of these methods without discussion. This does not correspond to truth. If the authors read carefully the paper, they can find that Bisconti et al. (2017) used several methods for inferring the body length of Eubalaena ianitrix including the equation of Pyenson and Sponberg (2011). Moreover, Bisconti et al. (2017) discussed pros and cons of each method and concluded that none of the available methods is exempt from problems. Bisconti et al. (2017) acknowledged that their reconstruction of the body mass was probably wrong and discussed their results in a broad sense. The harsh criticism to the paper of Bisconti et al. (2017) made by the present authors does not add anything to the discussion of the methodologies about body size reconstruction in fossil balaenids and misleads the readers by ignoring the real content of the work published by Bisconti et al. (2017). I strongly recommend to rephrase the discussion of the Bisconti et al. (2017) work from line 1067 onwards in order to correctly represent the real content of that paper.
It is also possible that the application of the Pyenson and Sponberg (2011) equation by Bisconti et al. (2017) was done better than in the present manuscript as Bisconti et al. (2017) made the corrections suggested by Pyenson and Sponberg (2011), i.e. they reduced the results by 47% and 37% in order to get a range of body size variation, while the present authors present only one result. Is the value obtained by the present authors corrected as suggested by Pyenson and Sponberg or not? To be honest, I was unable to replicate the results of the present authors when I checked the results presented in the present manuscript. In fact, the application of the equation of Pyenson and Sponberg to a bizygomatic width of 570 mm allowed me to find a total body length of 7.46 m. After the changes suggested by Pyenson and Sponberg (i.e., reduction of 47% and 37% of the initial result), I found two body lengths for Morenocetus: 3.96 m and 4.7 m that are different from the results of the present manuscript (5.2 m). The application of the same equation to a bizygomatic width of 620 mm (specimen MLP 5-15) resulted in a total body length of 8.06 m and, after the corrections, in a body length range included between 4.26 and 5.16 m that is different from the result of the present manuscript (5.6 m). In light of these new results, the discrepancies with the Bisconti et al. reconstruction of the body length of Eubalaena ianitrix seems more reasonable: 3.96-4.7 m for Morenocetus and 5-7 m for E. ianitrix which is almost twice of Morenocetus.
By the way, I noticed that the reconstructions of the body lengths of other fossil balaenids made by the present authors by using the equation of Pyenson and Sponberg differ from the published reconstructions made by Slater et al. (2017, see their supplementary information). In fact, in the present manuscript, the total body length of Balaenella brachyrhynus is 7.9 m while Slater et al. found that this whale was 7.2 m in length; Balaena montalionis is 7.2 m in this manuscript but the reconstruction made by Slater et al. found this whale being 4.87 m. Moreover, judging from published measurements, Balaenella brachyrhynus seems smaller than Balaenula astensis. In fact, the supraoccipital length of B. brachyrhynus is 310 mm (Bisconti 2005) and that of Balaenula astensis is 350 mm; the maximum diameter of the foramen magnum of Balaenella brachyrhynus is 64 mm and that of Balaenula astensis is 75 mm. How can Balaenella brachyrhynus be longer than Balaenula astensis in total body length? In fact, in the reconstruction of the present manuscript, the total body length of Balaenula astensis is 6.6 m and that of Balaenella brachyrhynus is 7.9 m.
I cannot understand these discrepancies and strongly recommend the present authors to calculate again the body length of Morenocetus and other balaenid species and, eventually, to discuss these discrepancies in the Discussion section.

In my opinion, due to the above observations, the manuscript is still in need of a serious revision. Figures attached to this review are provided in a separate 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: THE EARLY MIOCENE BALAENID MORENOCETUS PARVUS FROM PATAGONIA (ARGENTINA) AND THE EVOLUTION OF RIGHT WHALES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See below in general comments.
Experimental design: See below in general comments.
Validity of the findings: See below in general comments.
Additional comments: I am very pleased to see the revised version of this manuscript. The authors have properly addressed all the issues brought up by myself and the other reviewers. As stated in the first review of this work, a more proper description and thorough analysis of Morenocetus parvus was long overdue. This manuscript does both things, which makes this a much-needed contribution to our understanding of marine mammal diversity from South America, and the evolutionary history of Balaenidae.

The whole discussion of the orientation of the skull of balaenids is very helpful and will hopefully be followed by anyone else working on this group. The authors did an outstanding job in the description of the specimens and related figures.  Furthermore, the detailed discussion on the morphology and relationships of Morenocetus parvus and Balaenidae is helpful and thorough, especially making the tie-in between the text and the character/state used in the phylogenetic analysis. The manuscript is well written and I commend the authors on the high quality images and illustrations (which are extremely helpful and detailed). This work is no doubt of interest to paleontologist, neontologist as well as anyone interested in the evolutionary history of baleen whales.


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 EARLY MIOCENE BALAENID MORENOCETUS PARVUS FROM PATAGONIA (ARGENTINA) AND THE EVOLUTION OF RIGHT WHALES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: OK
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: The authors have done an excellent job in addressing all of my comments and I recommend acceptance of the paper - and look forward to seeing it in print. Kind regards, R.W. Boessenecker


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: TRANSCRIPTOMIC ANALYSIS IDENTIFIES GENES AND PATHWAYS RELATED TO MYRMECOPHAGY IN THE MALAYAN PANGOLIN (MANIS JAVANICA)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript provides a very thorough accounting of the data, methods, and results.  The narrative could be improved by more clearly linking the transcriptomics approach with both evolutionary (e.g. comparisons with carnivores) and species management/conservation questions and implications.

The manuscript would benefit greatly from the assistance of a native english speaker to ensure correct grammatical usage and to make several parts clearer.  There are a few spots where as written, it would appear that the correct meaning is not conveyed.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: By the nature of the study design, the comparisons of what is observed in ONE pangolin and only a certain number of tissues is compared against databases from multiple species and individuals and settings.  Correlations that are highlighted need to done emphasizing that these point to areas where further research might be very useful for theoretical and practical purposes.
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: TRANSCRIPTOMIC ANALYSIS IDENTIFIES GENES AND PATHWAYS RELATED TO MYRMECOPHAGY IN THE MALAYAN PANGOLIN (MANIS JAVANICA)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a very interesting and informative manuscript dealing with the transcriptomics of an unusual and little-studied mammal. In general, the manuscript is fairly well-written, although the English grammar does require some attention and I have tried to point these instances out in the accompanying annotated document.

In general, the manuscript is well-composed, although there were numerous instances where statements were made but not supported by a suitable reference. Again, I have tried to highlight these instances in the accompanying document.
Experimental design: With specific reference to the study animal, I would like to see more information included on the specimen used. Ideally, the authors should include the mass and/or length of the study animal to give some indication of its age. Also, I would like to see more information on where this individual was sourced, specifically whether it was a captive-bred individual, a wild individual that was maintained in captivity (and if so, how long was it in captivity for?), or a completely wild individual. I believe that the origin of the individual could have a direct effect on the conclusions drawn from this study, as each scenario has different levels and origins of stress, and the diet of the individual (especially if it was sourced from captivity) could also affect the transcriptome classes recorded. These factors also need to be considered when comparing your results to those of Yusoff et al. (2016) – was their study animal also sourced from captivity?
Validity of the findings: I would like to see the results of this study compared and contrasted to the study by Yusoff et al. (2016), especially as this is the only other study (to the best of my knowledge) that has investigated transcriptomics in a pangolin species. Despite these studies looking at predominantly different organs (with the exception of the liver, which is common to both studies) I do feel that comparisons can be made, especially with regards to the proportion of transcripts that were assignable to each ontological class, as well as the proportion of transcripts assigned to each molecular function and cellular component class.
Additional comments: Please see the accompanying document for more specific comments.

This is a very interesting study that will definitely be a valuable addition to the growing body of literature on this threatened species, and I look forward to reviewing a revised version of this manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: TRANSCRIPTOMIC ANALYSIS IDENTIFIES GENES AND PATHWAYS RELATED TO MYRMECOPHAGY IN THE MALAYAN PANGOLIN (MANIS JAVANICA)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Minor grammatical errors occur in the manuscript. Some are listed in the 'General comments,' below. References to other studies that have successfully linked dietary requirements to transcript profiles would be useful, if they exist -- see 'General comments'.
Experimental design: The question was well-defined, and meaningful. The experimental design was constrained by the availability of samples -- biological replicates would presumably have been useful, but impossible to obtain.
Validity of the findings: In the General comments, I suggest some places where the links between the results and the conclusions ought to be bolstered. This might be achieved with the addition of references to studies in other species, or detailed explanations. Alternatively, greater qualifications might be added to the conclusions addressing uncertainties.
Additional comments: The manuscript by Ma et al. describes an analysis of transcriptomes from several tissues of the Malayan pangolin. Previously, no transcriptome has been completed for the salivary glands or intestine of this species. Here they were sequenced with the aim of providing information about the genes involved in myrmecophagy, and learning more about dietary requirements of this species, whose conservation might benefit from ex situ breeding. This motivation is outlined quite well in the introduction. The methods used to perform the transcriptome sequencing and assembly seem to me to be largely sound. I have a number of suggestions for the manuscript, but otherwise think it would make a worthwhile contribution to PeerJ.

Overall, my most serious comment is that I was sometimes uncertain that the results justified inferences that were drawn in the discussion. It is an important goal to look for hints about pangolin dietary requirements, but in some cases I think greater clarification, qualification, or references to relevant literature would be helpful. As an example, on Line 373, I found the section on the amino acids to be highly interesting. It suggests that the absence of transcripts for arginine synthesis might mean they are incapable of making this amino acid, so that arginine might be added to pangolin diets in captivity. (An aside: Line 376 seems to contradict this -- "These results suggested that M. javanica may synthesize arginine de novo." Wonder if this shoud say "not synthesise"?) However, I kept wondering, in the case of Arginine, what does the absence of transcripts mean, especially when the experiment was not replicated? How likely is it that transcripts involved in Arginine biosynthesis were present, but not observed due to low abundance, and random chance? Have studies in other species drawn correct (verified) inferences about dietary requirements based on transcriptomic profiling of different tissues? Could the available reference genome be interrogated more carefully to try to confirm the absence of genes, to corroborate this inference? Note, I do not suggest removing comments on this result from the discussion, which seems potentially informative, but it would be good to see it considered a more thoroughly, or qualified more carefully.

Moderately important points:

Line 145-146: Are there parameter values used for tophat that could be supplied to make the analysis more reproducible?

Line 154-157: Little information is provided about the databases, to explain why the transcripts are annotated using all of them. Do they offer complementary insights, or just a greater chance of locating a match for a given transcript that is observed?

Line 181-182: It is not clear what the "ratio of the transcripts" refers to...

Line 225-228: Terms such as 'cell' (Line 225) and 'cell part' are used without much explanation. For example, does 'cell' mean expressed in the cytosol?

Line 334: The analyses of differences in expression between tissues are interesting, but the results probably ought to be interpreted somewhat cautiously, since there is no (technical or biological) replication. Perhaps a qualification could be added to the methods or discussion.

Minor corrections / suggestions:

Throughout: Mohamad Yusoff et al. 2016 -> Yusoff et al. 2016?
From Yusoff et al. 2016: "How to cite this article: Yusoff, A. M. et al. De novo sequencing, assembly and analysis of eight different transcriptomes from the Malayan pangolin. Sci. Rep. 6, 28199; doi: 10.1038/srep28199 (2016)."

Line 43 myrmecophage -> myrmecophagy

Line 44 protection seems awkward here.

Line 48 eutherians and placentals seems redundant.. perhaps "are unique among plancental mammals"

Line 92 suggestion: "the last two years"

Line 97 "popping up like mushrooms" perhaps too informal?


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: TRANSCRIPTOMIC ANALYSIS IDENTIFIES GENES AND PATHWAYS RELATED TO MYRMECOPHAGY IN THE MALAYAN PANGOLIN (MANIS JAVANICA)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript has been greatly improved since its original submission, and the authors are to be commended for this. I found the manuscript to be well-written, unambiguous and for the most part easy reading.
Experimental design: The methods and experimental design appear to be appropriate.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: I have a few minor suggested edits to improve the manuscript, which are detailed below:

Abstract
Line 43: Suggest deleting “of”. Sentence would read “Our study is the first to investigate the molecular mechanisms underlying myrmecophagy in M. javanica.”

Introduction
Lines 50 & 51. Gaudin et al. (2009) revised the taxonomy of pangolins, restricted the genus Manis to the four Asian species while assigning the two African tree pangolin species to the genus Phataginus and the two terrestrial African pangolin species to the genus Smutsia. These results have also been subsequently confirmed with molecular techniques (see for example du Toit et al. 2014), and this nomenclature has been adopted by most researchers and taxonomic groups, including the IUCN Pangolin Specialist Group. I therefore suggest that this taxonomy be adopted here as well.
[Gaudin, T.J., Emry, R.J. and Wible, J.R., 2009. The phylogeny of living and extinct pangolins (Mammalia, Pholidota) and associated taxa: A morphology based analysis. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 16(4): 235–305.]
[Du Toit, Z., Grobler, J.P., Kotzé, A., Jansen, R., Brettschneider, H. and Dalton, D.L., 2014. The complete mitochondrial genome of Temminck's ground pangolin (Smutsia temminckii; Smuts, 1832) and phylogenetic position of the Pholidota (Weber, 1904). Gene 551(1): 49–54]

Lines 55–58. Pangolins have been reported feeding on far more than four ant and one termite species, as is reflected in the articles that are cited. The four ant and one termite species listed all originate from the Pietersen et al. 2015 reference. I suggest that this sentence either be revised to reflect the full list of ant and termite species that pangolins are reported to feed on, or more preferably just state that pangolins feed exclusively on ants and termites (and keep the current references).

Line 73. Replace “the’ with “a”. The sentence will read “…habitat as a result of deforestation”

Results
Line 203. Remove “compared with the exons”

Line 361. You need to state where this “referred liver” originates from. I suggest including the "Yusoff et al. 2016" reference before “Figure S8”.

Line 367. What previous study does this refer to? Include the Yusoff et al. 2016 reference here as well.

Discussion & Conclusion
Line 378. Insert “the” between “between” and “small”. The sentence will read “between the small intestine and liver.”

Line 401. “Our” should not be capitalized.

Line 440. Remove the space in “amino -acid”

Lines 441 & 442. I suggest combining these two sentences to improve the flow. This can be done by combining the sentences to read “Malayan pangolins are endangered mammals for which captive breeding provides an opportunity to study the molecular mechanisms of myrmecophagy.”

Figures
Figure 3. Please write the full name (not just the abbreviation) of each tissue type in each of the axis legends.

Tables
Table 1. Replace “ID” with “Organ”

Table 2. Replace “ID” with “Organ”


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: FUNCTION OF JARID2 IN BOVINES DURING EARLY EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Please double-check the grammatical mistakes in this paper.
Experimental design: Design good
Validity of the findings: The paper is concise, well written and contains some interesting findings.
Additional comments: In this paper, authors investigated the function of JARID2 during bovine embryonic development. They studied the expression pattern during early embryonic process by using qRT-PCR and immunofluorescence and found that the cleavage rate and blastocyst rate were decreased after small interference mediated knocking down of JARID2, which is maily caused by dysregulation of pluripotent related genes expression in 2-cell stage. Finally, they detected the H3K27me3 level and found its level was significantly decreased in all the early embryonic stage.

1. The authors used double-stranded RNA to knockdown JARID1, did the authors detect the change of mRNA level of JARID1 after knockdown？
2. Manuscript should be written clearly in uniform line spacing.
3. Please move “how to analyse the fluorescence intensity” in line 257-258 into the M&M section.
4. Please double-check the grammatical mistakes in this paper.


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

Input:
Title: FUNCTION OF JARID2 IN BOVINES DURING EARLY EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This study identified the expression pattern of JARID2 in bovine oocytes and early embryonic stages and suggested that JARID2 played a key role in early embryonic development by regulating the expression of OCT4, SOX2 and c-myc via the modification of H3K27me3 expression. These results provide new data for the improvement in bovine in vitro embryo culture and understanding the regulation mechanisms in early embryonic development. However some contents need more modifications and explanations.

1. Some common mistakes or different words in English writing. These should be modified. I suggest that authors should check the manuscript carefully and try to avoid any mistakes like these:
Line 88 “MII stage”, but “M2 stage” in Fig 1 legend.
Line 181, “antibody (Abcom)”, is it “Abcam”? Company name and country should add to the manuscript like Line 161 “siRNA (Gene Pharma, China)”.

2. The Introduction Part.
The authors do not have to write the Introduction contents with extra title like “1. DNA methylation” and “2. Histone modification”. I suggest the authors rewrite this small part based on the important factors of histone modification.
3. Fig 2B. The description of Y-axis is missing.
In Fig 1B, Fig 4A and Fig 4B, the magnification or standard bar should be provided.

4. The Discussion Part.
This part should be more improved. The authors use lots of contents to describe the function of JARID2, H3K9 and H3K27. I think these contents should belong to the Introduction. More discussion like what’s its potential meaning of expression in cell nucleus and the synergy/different effects from this study would attract more readers’ attention. I think contents in line 314-329 are useful.
Experimental design: Experimental design is well done.
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: FUNCTION OF JARID2 IN BOVINES DURING EARLY EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript investigated the function of JARID2 during bovine early embryonic development. JARID2 has been shown to be an important epigenetic regulator for embryonic development via histone modification. Although there have been many reports on the function of JARID2 during early embryonic development, the current study systemically examined the expression pattern of  JARID2 in bovine and analyzed its possible regulatory roles on the expression of genes important to the maintenance of stem cell.
1.	English writing
In general, the manuscript is clear, intelligible and professional. However, the writing could be greatly improved if the manuscript could be reviewed by a native English speaker. The followings are some examples or suggestions:
A.	It would be consistent if the authors could use past tense to present or discuss their data and use present tense to discuss published data. However, it seems that the tense is randomly used, not consistent.
B.	Line 41: after knockdown JARID2…………..after knockdown of JARID2 or after JARID2 knockdown.
C.	Line 42: each early embryonic stages, suggest that JARID2 plays a key role in early embryonic development…………………early embryonic stages, suggesting that
D.	Line 55: Early embryonic development is when cell division and differentiation are most active and when there is large-scale transcription of zygotic genes……….. Early embryonic development is characterized by the most active cell division and differentiation with large-scale transcription of zygotic genes.
E.	Line 261: the jumonji histone family….. the jumonji histone demethylase family
F.	Line 266: JARID2 is a special histone…………. JARID2 is a special histone demethylase member
2.	Introduction
The introduction is well referenced. However, the introduction could be better structured by making the general introduction of epigenetic regulation more concise and focusing on JARID2 related studies, especially in terms of what is not known. In addition, the significance of the current study should be better defined.
3.	Discussion
The discussion could be more concise with focus on the significance of current findings.
4.	Legend for figure 2-4. Present tense should be used in figure legend.
Experimental design: The experiment is well designed with valid controls.
Validity of the findings: The results are sound with valid statistical analysis.

The quantity of siRNA in cells of blastocysts should be much lower due to siRNA partition during cell division. It should be cautious in explaining the gene expression data without knowing whether enough siRNA exists to interfere with JARID2 in cells of blastocysts.
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: EVALUATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF STEM RUST RESISTANCE GENES SR2, SR24, SR25, SR26, SR31 AND SR38 IN WHEAT LINES FROM GANSU PROVINCE IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: * There are some sentences that are  ambiguous and must be corrected and written in clear English and must conform to professional standards of expression.

Examples: lines 114-116, 117-120, 131, 141-145, 173-174, 186-187

* Citation in the text has o follow the standards

Examples: line 182, 186-187

* Headers of some of the tables did not explained well the contents of the respective tables.

Examples: Tables 4 and 5 need footnote what is "+" and "-".
                  There is a correction for the headers of Tables 1, 2 and 3 that
                   is highlighted in the attached annotated PDF.
* Needs specific conclusion based on on the obtained result rather than just putting a general conclusion at the end of the abstract and at the last part of the conclusion section (highlighted in the annotated PDF).
Experimental design: * The materials and methods is good except line 69 needs some clarification.
Validity of the findings: * Needs a specific conclusion based on the obtained result and the original research question.
Additional comments: * Use the right scientific names
Example: line 30

* Better to keep the list of cultivars in he table rather than long listing (42 cultivars) in the text
Example: lines 104-109, 152-155

* Put marker names in italics
Example: lines 174-176, in some of the references

* There are some corrections and comments in the attached annotated PDF


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

Input:
Title: EVALUATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF STEM RUST RESISTANCE GENES SR2, SR24, SR25, SR26, SR31 AND SR38 IN WHEAT LINES FROM GANSU PROVINCE IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript will profit if corrected by a native speaker.

References in the text and at the end are in agreement, as well as figures and tables
Experimental design: The manuscript is withing scope and aims of PeerJ, objectives of work are clear.

Material and method: lack of information about symptoms and scores which specified for each level of diseas. Even in figure 1 not all type of scores have been included.

More details about used markers is missing.

Missing data about used wheat cultivars and their pedigree, how they are related.
Validity of the findings: For this reviewer the amount of information provided is not sufficient for publishing in PeerJ, but if authors can provide more data about used cultivars, infection types using more races and more Sr markers, then the manuscript could be reconsidered.
Additional comments: The paper "Stem rust seedling resistance genes evaluation and identification of Sr2, Sr24, Sr26, Sr31 and Sr38 in wheat lines from Gansu Province in China" describes analysis of seedling resistance to 3 stem rust isolates at 75 local wheat varieties followed with marker analysis being diagnostic to 5 known stem rust resistance genes. Authors found that 42 or 66.0% of tested wheat varieties are resistant to tested races of Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici, while molecular marker analysis showed that 13 cultivars likely carrying Sr2; 25 carrying Sr31; and 9 Sr38. No cultivar was found to have Sr26 and Sr24.


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

Input:
Title: EVALUATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF STEM RUST RESISTANCE GENES SR2, SR24, SR25, SR26, SR31 AND SR38 IN WHEAT LINES FROM GANSU PROVINCE IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The English is not professional, but the attached revision will help. Raw data of seedling infection types was not shared.
Experimental design: Experimental design is sufficient.
Validity of the findings: Data largely robust, but seedling infection type data should be provided.
Additional comments: The manuscript is largely well done. Please address the specific comments in the attached revision to help improve the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: EVALUATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF STEM RUST RESISTANCE GENES SR2, SR24, SR25, SR26, SR31 AND SR38 IN WHEAT LINES FROM GANSU PROVINCE IN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Greatly amended.
Experimental design: Good.
Validity of the findings: Fair.
Additional comments: Line 288 to 291 need revision (words are repeated).

The molecular genetic markers linked to associated with Sr2, Sr24, Sr25, Sr26, Sr31, and Sr38 were used to detect the occurrence of these genes in 75 major wheat cultivars (lines) in Gansu Province in this study.

Change to:

"The molecular markers associated with Sr2, Sr24, Sr25, Sr26, Sr31, and Sr38 were used to detect the occurrence of these genes in 75 major wheat cultivars (lines) in Gansu Province in this study"

In general the conclusion seems need paraphrasing;

Suggestion:
Breeding resistant cultivars is an economic and effective way to protect wheat from disease. The development of molecular technology facilitated the identification and utilization of molecular markers for durable resistance breeding, leading to increased crop production. The molecular markers associated with Sr2, Sr24, Sr25, Sr26, Sr31, and Sr38 were used to detect the occurrence of these genes in 75 major wheat cultivars (lines) in Gansu Province in this study.  The results showed that 35 tested cultivars might carry one of these genes. This information can be used in breeding for stem rust resistance in the future.


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

Input:
Title: EVALUATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF STEM RUST RESISTANCE GENES SR2, SR24, SR25, SR26, SR31 AND SR38 IN WHEAT LINES FROM GANSU PROVINCE IN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript meets PeerJ standards.
Experimental design: The manuscript meets PeerJ standards.
Validity of the findings: Data are robust. Conclusions agree with data.
Additional comments: The authors addressed all of my concerns. I have some additional edits to improve the English of the newly added sections of the manuscript:

Abstract – change “a donor parent” to “donor parents”

Line 125 – use “genes” instead of “gene”

Line 311 – use “adult plant resistance”

Line 312 – use “chromosome arm”

Line 350 – use “Wheat plants carrying stem rust resistance gene Sr25 were susceptible to several…”

Line 352-353 – change to “to wheat chromosomes 7D and 7A from Thinopyrum ponticum (references).”

Line 357-358 – use “, but with white flour (Bariana…”

Line 358-359 – “The use of this gene in wheat programs is increasing for…  and the Ug99…. potential yield increases….conditions”

Line 416 – delete “linked to”


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 EFFECTS OF ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI AND ROOT INTERACTION ON THE COMPETITION BETWEEN TRIFOLIUM REPENS AND LOLIUM PERENNE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: a.	Statistical results are reported in insufficient detail. Each test corresponding to the results reported in the figures needs to be reported in a table with F-values and exact p-values. Results of multiple comparisons should be reported by putting letters above bars in the figures to identify significant differences among treatment combinations.

b.	The objectives paragraph (L61) is overly brief. Articulating a clearer set of objectives will assist the authors in restructuring the results and discussion sections. The objectives as written imply practical goals related to mixture development which do not reappear in any detail in the discussion.

c.	The results section is is very hard to follow, and overly focussed on minor points relative to the main effects in your study. Please revise to more clearly focus on the main issues that you want the reader to see in your figures and tables. A substantial reduction in length may help to focus.

d.	The dataset provided is not complete, as the individual biomass of Lolium and Trifolium in each pot does not appear to be reported, only total biomass. Also as noted below, the number of lines in the dataset (124) does not match the reported experimental design (100 pots).

e.	what the error bars on the figures represent (i.e. std. dev, 1 std error) needs to be reported. No error bars are provided on figure 5. If the estimated/actual productivity values were calculated on a pot by pot basis (they should be I think), then error bars and statistical testing can be done.

f.	excessive numbers of decimal places reported in the tables.

g.	While the paper is generally well written, extensive editing is needed to ensure correct English grammar and smooth reading flow.

h.	minor editorial points
i.	please thoroughly check the ms. for typos (e.g. missing spaces between words on L2, L30, L31)
ii.	L37 not clear what “higher utilization efficiency in light” means
iii.	L61 not clear what competence ability is
iv.	L105 colonized by n-fixing microbes?
v.	L129. More explanation needed.
vi.	the reference list needs to be carefully checked for misformatting and typos.
Experimental design: a.	I don’t understand the pot layout based on the description in the text and figure 1. In particular, nowhere is it stated what the “plant growth pillar” is. To me it appears that in the -roots treatments plants are confined to mesh columns with some volume of soil outside the columns, while in the +root treatment the whole soil volume is available. This design is problematic because the +root plants have more rooting volume available (the equivalent of the soil in the columns plus the volume outside the columns) than the –root plants (only the volume of the columns). This is an issue as there is lots of literature out there showing that available rooting volume can influence the outcome of these types of experiments.

b.	description of the experiment (100 pots) does not match with the provided dataset (124 rows).

c.	Statistical analysis is not completely described or justified. Given the design a 3-way ANOVA followed by multiple comparisons is all that should be needed. I don’t understand why the 2-way ANOVA or t-tests are mentioned.

d.	L93. The reasoning for the mowing treatment is not clearly stated. I understand that
forage species would routinely be mowed/grazed, however removal of the aboveground biomass is likely to trigger changes in the plant aboveground interactions that may have belowground implications.
Validity of the findings: The most important issue for the authors to deal with is the potential confound between the +root and –root treatments in terms of available rooting volume, as this may substantially affect our interpretation of the root treatment and the root by ratio and root by amf interactions. Otherwise, the underlying data in this study appear sound; the primary issues are in reporting and presentation as noted elsewhere in this review.
Additional comments: a.	Overall this study has substantial merit. Interactions between Lolium and Trifolium are very well studied, thus re-examination of the many questions that have been investigated in this system under slightly different conditions is very useful.

b.	I found the discussion to be quite superficial. Given the amount of research on these two species, and the number of pairwise interaction experiments involving roots, I was expecting a much wider ranging and more nuanced discussion.

c.	I am surprised to see no citation to Angela Hodge’s work which has extensively used these species in a variety of experimental settings including studies involving AMF.


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 EFFECTS OF ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI AND ROOT INTERACTION ON THE COMPETITION BETWEEN TRIFOLIUM REPENS AND LOLIUM PERENNE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I am not a native English speaker but it seems to me that the level of English used in this paper is really not good enough for a scientific publication. There are a lot of conjugation, sentence structure and grammatical mistakes. It also seems that sometimes the wrong vocabulary is used (e.g. competence instead of competitiveness? Or maybe for regeneration competence toward herbivory? But then you will have to explain more about that). The text is thus difficult to read. Therefore the English used here needs to be reviewed and improved.

There is not enough background on the two plants used in this experiment (their symbionts? one is a grass, one is a legume what does it mean for nutrient use?) and on the reasons why it is important to study them (sustainability, mix of grass and legume generally leads to a bigger productivity than monoculture and to a higher efficiency of nutrient use…). In addition, some concepts are not well explained or introduced like the plant “competence” or like the “transgressive over yielding” for instance.

Some papers cited in the introduction and in the discussion have conclusions that do not match to what is said in this draft. Some of the papers cited are quite old, (more than 20 years old). It could be nice to have newer papers cited. It is not that the older papers are not relevant but it is more because the investigation techniques have changed a lot and also the land management (in term of fertilization for instance).

The overall structure of the article conforms to an acceptable format and contains all the standard sections. The figures are relevant to the content of the article. However the quality of the Figure 1 should be improved: there is a missing parenthesis and also there are ‘arrows’ at the end of each word that should not be there I think. The legends of the figures are not detailed enough. Significance codes should be added.
All the raw data has been made available.
Experimental design: The research presented here fits to the aims and scope of PeerJ. However even if the knowledge gap being investigated is identified (i.e. ‘…many studies have explored the mechanisms of interspecific competition between T.repens and L.perenne, their works more focused on aboveground biomass, light competition, less is done with regard to their root interactions and soil microorganism effects.’), there is no clear hypothesis stated in this paper.

The investigation seems to have been conducted rigorously and the experimental design seems nice but it is not well explained. There is missing information and it is not possible to re-create the same experiment just by reading the materials and methods which is described here.

No AMF and/or no root physical interactions are non-realistic conditions in the field/nature so one could question the relevance of such a study, but it can be interesting considering fundamental knowledge.
Validity of the findings: The results presented here on the effect of AMF inoculation, roots interaction and the ratio of the two plants in mixture on L. perenne and T. repens biomasses and the conclusions made regarding the transgressive over yielding are relevant. The data on which the conclusions are based are provided. Hypotheses should be appropriately stated before to make any conclusion.

Some of the conclusions stated in this paper are made a bit quickly and are more speculations. Some of them are also going too far compared from what the results indicate.
Additional comments: Overall, I suggest that you have a native English speaking colleague review your manuscript. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 27, 38, 45, 99,123,  –and also especially in the results and in the discussion part. The current phrasing makes comprehension really difficult!!!

Introduction:
The main issue is that there is no hypothesis stated at the end of this introduction. Then you should add some background on L. perenne and T. repens  and on legume/grass mixtures in grasslands. Why mixing both of these plants is important. What is the aim of doing that.
L27: You should use 'In comparison with...' or 'compared with... instead of 'In comparing with''
L28: You should check what is said by Nyfeler et al. in the publication you cite, it is different from what you wrote. Nyfeler et al. is about positive interspecific interaction and not about competition.
L36: Del Rio et al. 2016 : You should check again what is written in this publication: they are not working on L perenne and T. repens.
L39 : Goldberg and Landa 1991:  You should check again what is written in this publication: they are considering seed biomass, germination, aboveground biomass, the density of the neighborhood plants etc...  and not root trait and soil nutrient concentration.
L46 & L51 : I think you should avoid using « ...and so on... » in a scientific publication.
L49 : You talk about the effect of moisture on L. perenne, it could be nice to also add the effect of moisture on T. repens.
L58: « extraradical hyphae radiating from plant roots for plant-plant interaction” It is difficult to understand what you mean, you should rephrase or explain more in detail.
L60: Wagg et al. 2011 You should check again what is written in this publication. Wagg et al. work on two other species than T. repens & L. perenne.
L63: “AMF inoculation helps some species for nitrogen absorbing by changing their AMF colonization...” It is difficult to understand what you mean, you should rephrase or explain more in detail.
L66: It would be nice to explain the reason why AMF, root and their interactions affect T.repens and L.perenne in their mixtures need to be further tested.
L67: In this last paragraph of the introduction you should add the hypotheses you have.

Materials and methods:
L76: you should explain better the factors and levels of your treatments.
L79: you should precise that your are only testing the root physical interactions as roots also interact through their exhudates and you cannot avoid them to go through the mesh you are using in the experiment.
L80: “In total, 20 treatments were randomly assigned with 5 replications” you already wrote that on L75.
L80,81: I think there is a mistake in the height and diameters of the pots. Later on (L84) they are 10 times bigger.
L82: you should precise that you only keep the root from physical competitive interaction.
L83: give more details on the seed sterilization.
L84-86: It is difficult to understand how is design the experimental set up even with the figure 1: What is the plant growth pillar for? I think you should describe better the experimental set up. What is the size of the meshbags in which are the plant fort the –root interaction? What is the overall tray size? I suggest you add this information.
L84: where is the soil from? I suggest you add this information.
L88-89: are these the characteristics of the soil itself or from the miture with loess, sand and peat? I suggest you add this information.
L92: how long were the day and night duration? I suggest you add this information.
L93: could you explain the reason why you mowed all the seedlings after 2months of growth?
L99-L102: I suggest that you give more details about the nature of the AMF inoculum.You should add the total number of spore per pot and also tell if there is an equal number of spore of each of the AMF species that you used (did you use an inoculum with all 5 strains already mixed or did you use five inocula and did you mixed them yourself?)
L107- 111: In this paragraph you explain how to measure the AMF colonization in the soil. However later in the text, (in the paragraph starting L 131, in the figure) you talk about AMF root colonization. I suggest that you change that to make the text coherent.
You should precise that you are using the dry aboveground and belowground biomasses.

Results:
You should rewrite this section adding for each result the details of the statistical analyses you did (name of the test, P-value...).
You should also indicate, each time there is a significant difference if it is increasing, or decreasing and in which proportion.
Discussion
You should rewrite this section with a better english and a better structuration of the conclusions you make on each result. I also suggest that you avoid doing  speculation or if you do, you should say it.
L198: Lantinga et al. 1999, Barillot et al. 2014.  You should check again what is written in these publications. It is different from what you wrote: they are not saying that the resource competition is only related to lighting absorbing rather than root interaction.
L213: you are saying that T. Repens has a better nitrogen assimilation because of root interaction; but you never talk about the symbionts of T. Repens. I suggest that you discuss more about the nitrogen fixing bacteria that are more responsible for the N content of T. Repens than the root interactions.
You also need a proper conclusion where you explain after doing this experimentwhich treatment is the best to obtain transgressive overyielding and why it is important to know that for grassland management.

Figures:
I suggest that you add a figure with the nitrogen content in the plants in the different treatments.
You should add more details in you legends: number of replicates, test realized. ..You should also explain the significance code : what does mean A and B in the table 3 , what does mean *, **, *** in the figure 2, 3 and 4.
Figure 5: there is no error bar is that normal?
Raw data:
What is the ratio on the column G?
For the root and shoot biomasses: why in total? You should add the unit of measurement.
For TN and LN: I suggest that you explain the unit. It is a percentage but a percentage of what?


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 EFFECTS OF ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI AND ROOT INTERACTION ON THE COMPETITION BETWEEN TRIFOLIUM REPENS AND LOLIUM PERENNE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language in this manuscript should be improved.  Currently, it was difficult for me to discern what was meant in several places.  For example, I had an especially difficult time understanding what was meant by sentences starting at lines 29, 34, 44, 75, 84 and 180.

Given these issues, it was difficult for me to determine the main purpose of the experiment.  If I follow the logic correctly, the researchers are trying to determine how the presence of a mutualist (AM fungi) and belowground interactions influence intra- and inter-specific competition between a forb and a grass. While the citations lead me to believe competition between these species has been tested, the authors state that no study has tested the effects of AMF on competition.

In addition to the main text, I though the explanation for the figures could use some clarity. For example, I am not certain I understand how the root interaction treatment was established, and Figure 1 did not help me much.  I have some additional comments below, but, focusing on the figure, what is the osculum?  Is that a hole in the bottom of the pot?  I’m not sure I understand the placement of the plant growth pillars in the two treatments.  It makes sense that they are around the plants in the root exclusion treatment, but what is the rationale for the placement in the treatment where root interactions are allowed?  Also, I’m not sure that the dimensions for the pillars in the two treatments are accurate because it doesn’t seem possible that they are the same size in both treatments.  For Figures 3 and 4, I’m not sure that I understand the x-axis.  Is root biomass denoted below the zero line?  If so, negative values for biomass do not make much sense.  Also, I think I was confused by Figure 4 because “total biomass” typically means the sum of above- and below-ground biomass – not the sum of biomass for both the forb and the grass.

Finally, while raw data was supplied, I could not find all of the data and I believe that the column information could be better reported. For example, I’m not sure I understand what information is presented in columns “Ratio” “Shoot in Total” “Root in Total” “TN%” and “LN%”.  I think that “Shoot in Total” and “Root in Total” refer to the total above and belowground biomass for the pot, and “TN%” and “LN%” refer to the %N for the forb and the grass, respectively.  If that is correct, where is the biomass data for individual plants or individual species in each pot?  Also, what about the AM fungal colonization/hyphae data (more on this below)?
Experimental design: As mentioned above, it was a little difficult for me to follow the motivation and justification for the experiment.  However, I believe that the experimental design is interesting, and the manipulation of AMF and belowground interactions on top of a manipulation of species relative abundance is powerful for determining how these factors influence the relative importance of intra- versus inter-specific competition.

That being said, I’m not sure that I understand how belowground (root) interactions were manipulated. How was the mesh installed to prevent root competition?  What are the gaps described in line 85?

I am also uncertain of some details with the AMF manipulation.  How were AM fungi measured?  The procedure described in the methods describes quantification of the length of extra-radical hyphae (hyphae outside of the plant root).  However, the figures and results describe percent colonization of the roots, which would involve staining the fungus in the roots and measuring what percentage of the root was colonized.  Which was the case?  If extra-radical hyphae were quantified, what portion of the soil was used?  In either case, the efficacy of the treatment could be determined.  In other words, did the AMF+ pots have greater colonization/hyphae than AMF- pots?

Finally, I’m not sure I followed the methods for the statistical analyses.  It states that ANOVAs were performed, but there wasn’t any information presented on whether AMF influenced plant biomass.  Also, it seems like the relevant metric to look at in Figure 3 is biomass per individual plant of each species in each pot.  For instance, the fact that the forb’s biomass increases with the number of forb individuals in the pot isn’t that interesting – but the response of the individual plants tells you something about how the treatments influence relative performance.
Validity of the findings: In the introduction, the addition of an AMF treatment was indicated as one of the major advances of this study.  However, the effect of AMF on plant biomass (and competition) was not assessed.  I’m not sure that I understand why this was not reported.
Additional comments: I believe that the design of this experiment is sound and can yield very interesting results.  For instance, I was very interested in knowing how AMF influence the balance of intra- and inter-specific competition for these two species.  I also think that the experiment touches on very important and timely topics in ecology: coexistence, biodiversity-ecosystem function, community consequences of mutualisms, above-below ground interactions.  A solid rewrite should be able to more clearly place this work in the context of some of these ideas, making the results more accessible to a broader audience.


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 EFFECTS OF ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI AND ROOT INTERACTION ON THE COMPETITION BETWEEN TRIFOLIUM REPENS AND LOLIUM PERENNE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Much improved from the prev. version. Still a few typos here and there.

minor point – please provide exact p-values in Table S1
Experimental design: The description of the design is now well described; I no longer have concerns in this area.
Validity of the findings: Some remaining concerns with the statistical analyses

As described in L167-172, the authors use a 3-way ANOVA with all interactions. This is a correct approach. They then, however, (L173 and on) remove the AMF fixed effects from the model. I do not understand why they do this as it should be possible to test the main effects/interactions involving other treatments in the complete model. Running a separate model, while not strictly incorrect, overly complicates the analysis. Further, on line 176 the authors report running T-tests to compare “variations” between root interaction treatments.  Two problems here, first, I assume that the authors are actually comparing means, and second, the main effects in the 3-way ANOVA should provide the answer.

The dataset and experimental description have been updated to match total number of pots (124). I am having trouble adding up the df in table S1 to reconcile the total experimental size however.  Given that there are 20 pots with no T repens in the dataset and 26 with no L perenne, shouldn’t the error df. be different between the results for the two species? It is critical that ambiguities like this be resolved for me to me able to trust the reported statistical results.
Additional comments: This is my second review. The manuscript is much improved, and most importantly the authors have clarified their experimental design to make clear that the plants were grown in equivalent per-plant root volumes. The writing is much clearer now, and more concise.


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 EFFECTS OF ARBUSCULAR MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI AND ROOT INTERACTION ON THE COMPETITION BETWEEN TRIFOLIUM REPENS AND LOLIUM PERENNE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English level of the draft has really been improved since the first submission. It is really easier to understand the manuscript but there are still a lot of conjugation, sentence structure and grammatical mistakes, so I suggest that you check again thoroughly the English.
In addition to the language, the structure and the content of the manuscript have also been really improved. The background and the cited literature have been completed and corrected like it was asked. They are still some missing information in the Statistical paragraph and some paragraphs of the discussion should be rewritten.
The overall structure of the article conforms to an acceptable format and contains all the standard sections. The figures are relevant to the content of the article. Relevant hypotheses have been added. All the raw data has been made available exept for AMF root colonization data.

All the line numbers I am referring to during the review are from the manuscript with tracked changes.
Experimental design: This part has also been really improved. There is still some missing info:
L105: you should add the gps coordinate of the station.
L111: you should add details on the nature of the AMF strains you purchased. Was it a from a spore solution? Was it from a root-organ culture?
L124: you should add the concentration of the rhizobium inoculants: how many bacteria per μl?
L153-154: ‘Roots of one plant individual were frozen at –20°C for determining AMF root colonization’: I don’t really understand. Do you mean one plant individual per microcosm? One plant individual per species per microcosm? So, in total, how many root system per treatment did you use for estimating the mean AMF colonization? It would be nice to add more details.

In the statistical analyses part:
About your data, did you check the normality and homogeneity of variances? If so which tests did you use?
For the GLM analysis, What was the most appropriate family wise errors for your data? And then, from the GLM, how were analyzed your data?
L196: you should precise that LSD stands for least significance difference.
With which test did you analyze the data from the AMF root colonization?
Validity of the findings: The data on which the conclusions are based are provided except for the AMF root colonization. Conclusion are well stated and linked to the original research questions & limited to supporting results.
Some of the conclusions stated in this paper are still made a bit quickly and are more speculations.
Additional comments: L13 :” These results showed T. repens…” there is a missing word: These results showed that T. repens…
L15: regulates
L16: makes (or you add a ‘s’ to ‘interaction’ lines 14 and 15.)
L17: plant-plant
L17: ‘involved in’ instead of ‘associated with’
L23: ‘Plant communities with more species’…’: you could replace with: Plurispecific plant communities are usually…
L31-33: Mixtures of legumes and non-legumes which have been widely used in mixed sowing pasture and agricultural intercropping system can achieve better performance in productivity and stability….
L39-40: Grass–clover mixtures of Lolium (grass) and Trifolium (legume) are considered as model system in agricultural and natural grassland ecosystems….
L44: ‘had a strong effect…’
L45: ‘L. perenne increased its N absorbing along with increased soil moisture and further enhanced its competitive ability, while T. repens had weaker N response at higher soil moisture…’ You could replace with: L. perenne N absorption increased along with soil moisture and further enhanced its competitive ability, while T. repens displayed a weaker N response at a higher soil moisture…’
L47: ‘studies’ instead of ‘works’.
L50: missing s at ‘root interaction…’ or ‘occur’
L51: Which previous study? The one from Dennis and Woledge or the one from Davidson and Robson? I think you should just write: ‘It was found that…’ or ‘Dennis & Woledge (1987) and Davidson& Robson (1990) found that…’
L59, 283, 293, 298: ‘a higher…’
L59: ‘…fast growing root system…’
L60:’… a higher light utilization efficiency…’
L65: I would remove ‘species’
L70: can you explain? How does it enhance the competitive power of T. pretense?
L 73:’ratios’
L86: ’ To investigate the amount of nitrogen fixed by T. repens and potentially transferred to other plants…’
L92: ‘The eight…’
L93: Instead of: ‘were close to container wall and evenly located in container ‘ you could write: ‘… were evenly located close to the container wall.’
L97-98:’Thus, the total growth space for the roots of the eight plants was the same in microcosms without root interaction and in microcosms with root interaction.’
L133: ‘… into each…’
L137: ‘… into the opposite…’
L143: ‘…of the microcosms… ‘
L152: ‘all plants’’
L191: remove the apostrophe after ‘its’
L192: ‘alter’ and not ‘altered’

Results:

L203 and 207: it should be p> 0.05
L203, 207 and 208: you should add the name of the test used in parenthesis before the p-values.
L203: Unless you’ve only used 1 plant per treatment to measure the root mycorrhizal colonization, you should write ‘The average mycorrhizal root colonization…’ and if you only measured the colonization on one plant per treatment then you cannot conclude anything from that.
L205: you should indicate the mean percentage of root colonization in the +AMF treatment
L214, 215: you should add the name of the test used in parenthesis before the p-values.
L228: '...by 21%...' add the statistical test and the p-value.
L229:'...by 12%...' idem
L233: '...by 64%...' idem
L240: you should add the name of the test used in parenthesis before the p-values.
L242, 244 &247 & 248: ' add the statistical test and the p-value after the%
L251,254, 255: you should add the name of the test used in parenthesis before the p-values
L258: ' Shoot N content of L. perenne significantly decreased when its planting ratio changed from monocultures to mixtures in any ratio with T. repens': add the statistical test and the p-value
L208: ‘Mycorrhizal root colonization of L. perenne increased significantly along with the increasing proportion of T. repens in mixtures.’
L216-218: you should reformulate like: ‘ When the planting ratios ranged from T2:L6, to T4:L4 and T6:L2, the aboveground biomass of T.repens with root interaction respectively decreased from 47%, 46% and 42% in comparison with no root interaction (T-test, p < 0.05; Fig. 2a)’
L218: remove 'while'
L229:'... indicating that...'
L231: '...of L. perenne significantly increased...'
L235: replace by :'indicating that the intraspecific root interaction...'
L239:'yields'
L250:'... the RYind of L. perenne was increased with the increase in the proportion of T. repens in mixture...' , replace by : '... the RYind of L. perenne increased along with the proportion of T. repens in mixture...'
L263:'... exert contrasting effect...'
L264: remove 'of these 2 species'
L266: 'legumes'
L267 :' grasses'
L268: ' which should enhance'
L269: 'as a lower'
L271:' it is' and not 'it's'
L282: ' in regard to' or 'regarding' but not 'in regarding to'

Discussion:
L293: 'which resulted in ..' this is too affirmative
L307: 'It indicates that L. perenne has much stronger root interaction than legume T. repens', you should explain and develop more this affirmation.

L294: 'contributes'
L296: 'suggesting', 'confers'
L296: you yould reformulate the sentence: '... suggesting that this extra N conferred a competitive advantage to T. repens...'
L299: You should rephrase: '... resulting from its N fixing rhizobial symbionts...'
L301:  'suggests'
L289 -303: You should rewrite this paragraph and improve the English.
L307: instead of 'was mainly from' : 'was mainly due to '
L311: 'nutrients'
L319:'participates in' or ' contributes to' instead of 'helps'
L322:'decreases the one from T. repens...'
L324-325:' thus they could sustainably cohexist.'
L329:'suggest that', 'is a key driver'

Figures and data:
Fig S1: you should add letters in top of the bars indicating if they are significant differences or not.
In the legend of the figure you should add the number of replicates used per treatment and the test used to compare the root colonization in the different treatments.

Raw data: you should add the data on the AMF root colonization in the table

In the description/title of the figures you should add what the error bar.
In the figure 2, even if you indicate the significant differences between +Root and –Root, it is not possible to know if they are significant differences between the planting ratios. I suggest that you put different letters to indicate these differences.


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: EXAMINING THE STRESS-BURNOUT RELATIONSHIP: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF NEGATIVE THOUGHTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.  Although the writing is generally clear, the manuscript could benefit greatly from a thorough proofreading (and modification where necessary) by a native English-speaker.

2.  The nature of the interaction and conjunctive moderation noted on lines 124-125 should be described. Similarly, the nature of the mediation and moderation mentioned on l. 147-154 should be described.

3.  On line 132, it should be "negative cognitive triad."
Experimental design: 1.  Evidence in support of the validity of the CSALSS, ATQ, and ABQ should be summarized in the Results section.
Validity of the findings: 1.  Although the cross-sectional nature of the data are duly noted in the Discussion section on lines 430-434, language that implies that causal relations were investigated and established is used throughout the manuscript (e.g., "influencing" on line 67, "source of burnout" on line 411, "sources of negative thoughts" on line 423). Such language should be removed from the manuscript.

2.  Similarly, the process described on lines 89 to 97 cannot be examined with cross-sectional data. In a cross-sectional design, the terms "independent variable" (line 287) and "dependent variable" (line 288) should be replaced with "predictor variable" and "criterion variable," respectively.  Even a longitudinal design (as suggested on lines 432 to 434) would not address the issue of causation, although confidence in the model might increase.

3.  Given the relatively minimal reductions in beta values in the mediation analyses, the findings should be described as reflecting only partial mediation (as they are in the Abstract). With partial mediation, the statement on lines 359 and 360 is not true.

4.  It is plausible that the three sets of variables (i.e.,life stress, negative thoughts, burnout) could be causally related in multiple ways.  For example, life stress could precipitate burnout, which could lead to negative thoughts. It would be of interest to see how other potential models pan out.
Additional comments: 1.  The applied implications, which begin on line 440, are not necessarily wrong, but they seem premature in light of the correlational nature of the results.


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: EXAMINING THE STRESS-BURNOUT RELATIONSHIP: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF NEGATIVE THOUGHTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This study tried to identify the stress-burnout relationship and the meditating role of negative thoughts to explain such relationship in the Taiwanese student athletes. Such investigation seems to be meaningful to support cognitive-affective model of athletic burnout which was developed in the western society and verify validation of the model in order to apply it to the different country which has different cultural norm. Moreover, this study is aiming at test meditating effect of negative thoughts between stress and burnout in the athletic context and it is strength of the current study.

However, there are many points that should be addressed and corrected throughout the entire manuscript. More details are indicated at below and the authors should revise them.

* In the entire manuscript, many grammatic errors, awkward sentences, and illogical paragraphs have been found and indicated in the pdf manuscript by the reviewer. Therefore, it is highly suggested that the manuscript should be edited by English professionals before resubmitted.

1. Introduction

-It is too long and very confused to catch up what the authors want to describe.
For instance, negative thoughts, just only one research variable in this study was described in about 3 pages from page 14-17. It needs to be concisely shorten.
-Moreover, the necessity of the study was not enough to support this study. It also needs to add some more sentences.
- The purpose of the study should be clearly indicated.

2. Methods and Results

These sections have been relatively logically written. Results section in particular is well described the findings. However, some awkward sentences have been found.

3. Discussion

It has been relatively well described. However, it is also too long, almost 10 pages. The authors should concisely rewrite.

4. References

It is 15 pages and therefore should be shorten (suggested less than 40 references).
Experimental design: 2. Methods and Results

These sections have been relatively logically written. Results section in particular is well described the findings. However, some awkward sentences have been found.
Validity of the findings: 2. Methods and Results

These sections have been relatively logically written. Results section in particular is well described the findings. However, some awkward sentences have been found.
Additional comments: This study is timely appropriate to identify the stress-burnout relationship and the mediating role of negative thoughts for the Taiwanese athletes. In addition, the findings will contribute to develop psychological knowledge and athletic performance in Taiwan. However, there are many aspects that should be corrected or addressed by the authors in entire manuscript.

Therefore, it is not enough to be considered in publication without major revision. I suggest that this manuscript should be resubmitted after revision.


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

Input:
Title: EXAMINING THE STRESS-BURNOUT RELATIONSHIP: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF NEGATIVE THOUGHTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I appreciate the efforts of the authors in addressing my concerns and those of the other reviewer.  The manuscript is very much improved as a result of the changes that have been made.
Experimental design: In my previous review, I should have noted that evidence in support of the validity of the CSALSS, ATQ, and ABQ should be summarized in the Measures section (not the Results section, as I mistakenly wrote).  What support for the validity of the scales, independent of the results of the current study, has been obtained?
Validity of the findings: Although I appreciate inclusion of the sentences on lines 439-445 about examining other models with the three sets of variables, it would be ideal if the authors could report some of those analyses in the current paper since they have the data to do so.  Findings from such analyses could strengthen confidence in the main cross-sectional findings, particularly if other models don't work as well as the one tested in the main analyses.
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: EXAMINING THE STRESS-BURNOUT RELATIONSHIP: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF NEGATIVE THOUGHTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: It is witnessed that the manuscript throughtout the entire texts has been clearly improved.
Experimental design: These sections have been relatively logically written. Results section in particular is well described the findings.
Validity of the findings: The findings will contribute to develop psychological knowledge and athletic performance in Taiwan.
Additional comments: It  has been enoughly improved throughout the entire manuscript and so I believe that the manuscript is OK to be considered in publication without revision.


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

Input:
Title: THE FIRST OBSERVATIONS OF ISCHNOCHITON (MOLLUSCA, POLYPLACOPHORA) MOVEMENT BEHAVIOUR, WITH COMPARISON BETWEEN HABITATS DIFFERING IN COMPLEXITY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall a good paper on a neglected subject.
I was not able to open the Excel supporting dataset.
Experimental design: These are cryptic animals that live under rocks (pebbles, cobble, boulders), usually ones at least partially buried in clean sand, and also on rock covered with a thin layer of sand. While it is commendable that the observations were done without disturbing the habitat (and therefore altering their behaviour), there is no indication of what proportion of the population actually come up on to the top of the substrate and therefore can be seen, compared with animals that stay below the sand surface.
Validity of the findings: There is mention of “drifting” dispersal as adults – this is a rare behaviour in chitons and is an escape response to disturbance, and is found commonly in only a few species – I. smaragdinus is not one of them. Species that use this live in mobile boulder fields usually in areas commonly subject to water movement sufficient enough to move the rocks. The vast majority of chitons respond to disturbance by clamping, then crawling into shadow. The very few species that use “drifting” react to disturbance by releasing from the substrate, curling up and falling down into crevices, then uncurling and reattaching – a useful survival behaviour if the substrate is badly disturbed. It is very obvious if this behaviour is exhibited by a species. Rather than just mention this as a possibility, it would have been very easy to see if this species exhibits this behaviour or not, and specify this.
They mention that this species has “an atypical carnivorous diet”  - while the general opinion of chitons is that they are grazing herbivores, this is definitely not the case in Australian waters where grazing herbivores are the minority – this has been known since Kangas & Shepherd 1984, and is stated in the ABRS Fauna volume amongst other references. The commonest diet is grazing omnivores, grazing carnivores like I. smaragdinus are quite common.
Also, this is not the only species the emerge from the sand onto rock to graze at night, there are quite a few species that do this in SA, just not ones studied by Kangas & Shepherd.
Additional comments: No additional comments