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: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE SWEDISH VERSION OF THE SATISFACTION WITH LIFE SCALE IN A SAMPLE OF INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have carried out a systematic validation process in accordance with the principles of the COSMIN statement. It is well written, with a clear and coherent structure.
Experimental design: The design of the work complies with the technical and statistical standards of the validation studies. Confirmatory factor analysis has been included in the validity study, which gives it special interest.
All analyses have been correctly and completely described in the methodology section.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions of the work correspond to the objectives set in the work. This study will allow mental health professionals in Sweden to use this tool in a standardized way. It would be interesting to continue this research line to provide thresholds for the score interpretation or patient classification that improves their use in the clinic, such as minimal clinically important change, or Patient Acceptable Symptom State.
Additional comments: The authors have adequately responded to these reviewers' comments. In my opinion, the manuscript has improved its readability and quality in the aspects indicated in the first review.
Congratulations.


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: LIMB MYOLOGY AND MUSCLE ARCHITECTURE OF THE INDIAN RHINOCEROS RHINOCEROS UNICORNIS AND THE WHITE RHINOCEROS CERATOTHERIUM SIMUM (MAMMALIA: RHINOCEROTIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have provided the first quantitative comparison of white and greater-one-horned rhinoceros appendicular musculature in both adult and neonate individuals, and have presented their results is a broad comparative context with regard to phylogenetically close relatives (horses and tapirs) and species of comparable mass (proboscidians, hippopotamids etc.). The article is written is good English throughout. There are a few grammatical errors, and some sections which would benefit from structural rearrangement, but on the whole this article is very well written and meets the expected standards of an academic article. There are a few minor changes needed to the references (some of which seem characteristic of mistakes in citation-plugin software), and rectifying these will not take long. The literature used does seem to cover the major comparative groups which inform the results and discussion; there may be room for the authors to expand upon this in certain sections (see .pdf comments). The article is well structured (with the exception of the first Discussion, which in my opinion belongs in the Results), with informative tables and figures. I have a few niggling points on the figures (see .pdf), though on the whole I think they are well laid out and highly informative. From what I can tell, all supporting information seems to be in order, and is beneficial and relevant to the submitted work. I would encourage the authors to look through their supplementary file (especially File S2.docx) to check the grammar – there are some things which I picked up on in the main document which also apply to the supplement, but nothing major. Some minor corrections to references are required, and possibly the addition of some supporting literature here and there.
Experimental design: The subject of this article falls comfortably within the remit of the journal PeerJ. The research question is well defined, with clear hypotheses. There is scope to increase support for the rationale behind the hypotheses (see .pdf), but in general they are sound, sensible and well explained. The experimental design is also well laid out, and meets the criteria expected for a comparative myology study. The methodologies are clearly explained with rationale for most of the calculations. Minor additional explanations would benefit the reader, which I have detailed in the .pdf. Overall this is a very sound example of methodology for a comparative myology study of large mammals.
Validity of the findings: There could be a case for this study being a replication of the work of Haughton (1867), but personally I do not buy into that. The results that the authors present here are novel, offering comparisons which have not been performed before across species and ontogeny in rhinoceroses, and the quantitative nature of the information produced (e.g. PCSA, Fmax) set it apart from previous dissection reports on rhinoceroses. Data provided are sound and methodology well explained, and to the best of my understanding the statistical methodologies are robust and suitable. The conclusions link well to the comparisons in the Discussion; there may be room for a little more expansion of the findings, perhaps in perspective of the comparative ecology of the rhinoceros species in question, or to the current understanding of “graviportality”. That said, I believe the conclusions are sound and a good summation of the work performed by the authors.
Additional comments: I very much enjoyed this article – as the authors point out themselves, this is a group which is well known by the general public but has been afforded somewhat less attention by the scientific community, especially when it comes to comparative functional anatomy. I therefore applaud the work done by the authors, who have clearly put a lot of effort into generating their results. My comments on the reporting are numerous, but minor (see attached .pdf). On the whole I think this is a very well written article, which will benefit from some changes to the terminology or the sentence structure here and there. I think my only major suggestion would be the repositioning of the first Discussion section into the Results, blending it with the original Results text as all the information which is presented is useful and interesting. There was a notable lack of citing tables and figures in useful places throughout the Results and Discussion sections, which again is a minor consideration which can be easily rectified. The experimental design is not revolutionary, but in this case it does not need to be, and the methods are well within the usual procedures for such studies – and these have been done to a very good standard in the article. The results and discussion sections are valid and bring in a good pool of comparative literature; there is certainly space to explore a little more in certain aspects, or add some information in the Introduction which would better inform the reader going into the Results and Discussion. My specific comments can be found on the attached .pdf document. I wish the authors well with this article, and hope to see more like it exposing comparative anatomy of popular but maligned taxonomic groups 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: LIMB MYOLOGY AND MUSCLE ARCHITECTURE OF THE INDIAN RHINOCEROS RHINOCEROS UNICORNIS AND THE WHITE RHINOCEROS CERATOTHERIUM SIMUM (MAMMALIA: RHINOCEROTIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well written, and the language is clear. References were adequately cited. The article is well-structured and figures and tables were of high quality.
Experimental design: The aim of the study is within the scope of the journal. Research question was well-defined and it is worth investigating. Methods were described with sufficient details.
Validity of the findings: The study provided data from one adult and one neonate for each species. To make the findings of the paper more robust, it is ideal that the authors can increase the number of the specimens studied, as inter-individual variabilities of the muscle parameters are known to be quite large. However, I understand that rhino specimens are very rare and it is extremely difficult to increase the number. So the small number of specimens studied is I think acceptable.
Additional comments: The manuscript provided, for the first time, qualitative descriptions and quantitative date of muscle architecture in two species of rhinos. The data are very unique and certainly contribute to our understanding of the functional morphology of terrestrial animals with large body mass. The only weakness is that the study provided data from only one adult for each species, even though inter-individual variabilities of the muscle parameters are known to be quite large. I know it is difficult to add new data, but I would like to see some more discussions about this limitation.


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: LIMB MYOLOGY AND MUSCLE ARCHITECTURE OF THE INDIAN RHINOCEROS RHINOCEROS UNICORNIS AND THE WHITE RHINOCEROS CERATOTHERIUM SIMUM (MAMMALIA: RHINOCEROTIDAE)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the manuscript is well-supported with the authors’ new data as well as background information and provides insights into the locomotion of large terrestrial vertebrates.
Experimental design: Overall, the experimental design is sound. Of the four hypotheses stated at the end of the introduction, the first two should be a bit more specific.
Validity of the findings: The anatomical description is detailed and quantitative data have been provided. The conclusions are supported by the data and relate back to the original stated hypotheses.
Additional comments: I thank the authors for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript! I have some general comments and some line-by-line comments/questions.

In general, the first section of the discussion is a bit tedious. Since the general organization of this section parallels the ‘organization’ section of the Results, I suggest combining these into a section on anatomical description (in the results or as its own section). Statements about particular myological features/functional implications/interesting comparative aspects can stay in the discussion. Alternatively, some of the comparative information (rhinos vs other ungulates) could be summarized in a table or figure.

Related to this, the hypotheses get kind of lost in the muscle descriptions, as do the interesting conclusions. The way the discussion is laid out right now (limb by limb, region by region for both comparative and quantitative myology) doesn’t synthesize/address the results within the broader context of rhino anatomy/locomotion. Because the main thrust of the paper relates to adaptations for supporting a large body mass, the discussion could be streamlined/clarified by focusing on aspects of the myology that relate back to the original hypotheses.

This would also strengthen the conclusion by providing context for it that could be restated and expanded upon. The final bits of the conclusion where you discuss the unsuitable of the ‘graviportal’ grouping is super interesting and I think could be elaborated on in the discussion.

L79 – ‘tradeoff’ slightly confusing here. Maybe ‘advantage’ instead, or ‘the latter can generate greater force for the same muscle volume, demonstrating a tradeoff between excursion and force production’

L109 – replace ‘would be’ with ‘is’

L110-112 – awkward sentences here, can combine

L122-135 – this paragraph seems superfluous, since these citations will come up in the rest of the manuscript. You could make this more concise by simply referring to the species with data available (or not available) for comparison

L139-144 – rephrase the first two hypotheses, to provide more detail on the adaptations you expect to see. Something like ‘We hypothesize that rhino musculature will share features linked to fast running with their close relatives..’ and ‘we expect to find evidence of adaptation to large body size, similar to those observed in other heavy-bodied taxa…’

L142 – delete ‘in’ in the sentence ‘unlike in their cousins’

L204 – delete ‘compared’

L428 – This first section of the discussion feels ponderous.

L457-458 – this sentence provides functional info for context

L814-820 – the meaning of these sentences is unclear to me. What does ‘less biomechanical benefits’ mean? The SVC is more powerful than the SVT in horses, but the RHB, which is less powerful than both, is more biomechanically important in horses? The paragraph as a whole is a bit confusing.

L844 - 846 – Since you didn’t measure any tendon or elastic properties, is this relevant? Also substitute ‘recover’ for ‘restitute’

L893-901 – the focus of this seems to be the equine limb rather than your data – reframe this slightly so that the horse data/discussion is in direct comparison to the rhino data

L967 – perhaps ‘negative scaling relationship’ instead of ‘negative allometry’ since the nature of the relationship is hard to discern from small sample size?

L1019-1021 – restate the traits here and make sure they are explicitly discussed in the discussion


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

Input:
Title: LIMB MYOLOGY AND MUSCLE ARCHITECTURE OF THE INDIAN RHINOCEROS RHINOCEROS UNICORNIS AND THE WHITE RHINOCEROS CERATOTHERIUM SIMUM (MAMMALIA: RHINOCEROTIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised article is written in very good English throughout. There are one or two grammatical anomalies which I have highlighted, but on the whole this article is very well written and meets the expected standards of an academic article. Minor changes from the original manuscript have been comprehensively undertaken. The literature used covers the major comparative groups which inform the results and discussion. The article is well structured, with informative tables and figures. From what I can tell, all supporting information seems to be in order, and is beneficial and relevant to the submitted work.
Experimental design: The subject of this article falls comfortably within the remit of the journal PeerJ. The research question is well defined, with clear hypotheses. The experimental design is also well laid out, and meets the criteria expected for a comparative myology study. The methodologies are clearly explained with rationale for the calculations. Overall this is a very sound example of methodology for a comparative myology study of large mammals.
Validity of the findings: The results that the authors present here remain novel, offering comparisons which have not been performed before across species and ontogeny in rhinoceroses, and the quantitative nature of the information produced (e.g. PCSA, Fmax) set it apart from previous dissection reports on rhinoceroses. Data provided are sound and methodology well explained, and to the best of my understanding the statistical methodologies are robust and suitable. The conclusions link well to the comparisons in the Discussion, and there is now more expansion on the findings in perspective of comparative ecology and our current understanding of “graviportality”.
Additional comments: The authors have provided the first quantitative comparison of white and greater-one-horned rhinoceros appendicular musculature in both adult and neonate individuals, and have presented their results is a broad comparative context with regard to phylogenetically close relatives (horses and tapirs) and species of comparable mass (proboscidians, hippopotamids etc.). I very much enjoyed this article – as the authors point out themselves, this is a group which is well known by the general public but has been afforded somewhat less attention by the scientific community, especially when it comes to comparative functional anatomy. I therefore applaud the work done by the authors, who have clearly put a lot of effort into generating their results.
Having viewed this article twice now, I have very little to add to my previous appraisal. With regards to the revision documents and responses to the reviews, I agree with the rationale for all their rebuttals. I must also emphasise the benefit for the reviewer of providing the tracked changes very clearly as was done by the authors – well done! Regarding the revised manuscript, I have some additional but very minor suggestions (see attached .pdf). I think this is a very well written article, which has benefitted from changes to the terminology and the sentence structure from the previous version. My only major suggestion was taken on, and the authors have now married the Results and Discussion sections together very well. The methods remain well within the expected procedures for such a study. The results and discussion sections remain valid and bring in a good pool of comparative literature; they also flow much better now they have been rearranged. My (very minor) specific comments can be found on the attached .pdf document. I congratulate the authors once again on this article, and hope to see more like it exposing comparative anatomy of popular but maligned taxonomic groups 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: LIMB MYOLOGY AND MUSCLE ARCHITECTURE OF THE INDIAN RHINOCEROS RHINOCEROS UNICORNIS AND THE WHITE RHINOCEROS CERATOTHERIUM SIMUM (MAMMALIA: RHINOCEROTIDAE)
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well written, and the language is clear. References were adequately cited. The article is well-structured and figures and tables were of high quality.
Experimental design: The aim of the study is within the scope of the journal. Research question was well-defined and it is worth investigating. Methods were described with sufficient details.
Validity of the findings: The study provided data from one adult and one neonate for each species. To make the findings of the paper more robust, it is ideal that the authors can increase the number of the specimens studied, as inter-individual variabilities of the muscle parameters are known to be quite large. However, I understand that rhino specimens are very rare and it is extremely difficult to increase the number. So the small number of specimens studied is I think acceptable.
Additional comments: The paper should be accepted.


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: ARTIFICIAL LIGHT SOURCE SELECTION IN SEAWEED PRODUCTION: GROWTH OF SEAWEED AND BIOSYNTHESIS OF PHOTOSYNTHETIC PIGMENTS AND SOLUBLE PROTEIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: - Overall a worthwhile study investigating early stage, controllable and optimised growth of a sustainable aquaculture taxon which has strong cultural relevance to S.E. Asia.

- English is generally good but some minor care with plurals/use (or no use) of "the" - taking the first Introduction paragraph as an example. Occasionally, text slips from past into present tense, and some attention required on reference style (e.g. lines 124-125).

- Text would benefit from a little more explanation in the Introductory background, for instance line 46, what nutrients and why do they not support wild seaweed growth? Is this a case of contamination by heavy metals, for example? It would also be worth briefly explaining why you have chosen the particular biochemical fractions to sample, what do they do and how might they relate to each other (might sit best in lines 72-78)?

- Literature references appear fairly sound and it is unsurprising that much will be taken from microalgae. However a cursory glance suggested at least one recent reference below, which seems very relevant to this study:

Enhanced growth rate and ulvan yield of Ulva pertusa using light-emitting diodes (LEDs)
By: Le, Bao; Shin, Jong-Am; Kang, Man-Gu; et al.
AQUACULTURE INTERNATIONAL  Volume: 26   Issue: 4   Pages: 937-946   Published: AUG 2018

Figure 1 (part) showing the lights is probably unnecessary, and a diagram rather than a photograph of the culture materials would be easier to follow. The latter is required as the written explanation is a little unclear (for instance, rope length does not equal the tube length, (line 91-92).

Figures 3-5 may be better viewed as colour relevant to treatment, but at least "open" rather than a block of black colour. It would also be an improvement to display as a series of simple tables.

Analysis - needs to be clearer as I would have thought that the results would all be ANOVA, so state why and when t test was used. Did data pass normality and variance tests so they were OK to enter a parametric test. There should also be details of the post hoc tests used. More P values should enter the results text, for example in brackets along with the general data values that have been picked out.

Discussion - OK overviews or results with reference to other papers - however is it possible to discuss more about potential reasons for your findings? Perhaps a bit basic, but with one brown alga and one green alga used, is it particularly surprising that the wavelengths at the same parts of the colour-wheel were not as optimal as those adjacent or opposite? How do you envisage the findings to be used at scale?
Experimental design: - Manuscript seems to be in scope with PeerJ, ethical considerations not applicable.

- Overall M&M also need to be reviewed (minor questions). For instance Figure 2 is mentioned before figure 1; 12h:12h and PFD units are mentioned twice; would be usual to state n number and start size range (presume blotted wet weight) for collected seaweeds - particularly as they are collected from the wild as juveniles with unknown provenance and may show a wide variance; presume also that there was no light pollution between treatments, and the fluorescent light producer and brand needs to be stated (presume wide spectrum type - others exist, e.g. narrower office lighting which can be harsh blue or domestic warmer light).

Main design or concept questions are as follows, bearing in mind that the main purpose of the study is to understand whether additional lighting could work at scale in the sea, to improve seaweed growth.

1) The trial is with juveniles over a relatively short 18 day period at lab scale. Do you think it is possible to reliably inform a future large scale effort?
2) If so, would a better control (or reference) involve normal sunlight, or turbid water? Or perhaps an additional/future field study?
3) Juvenile seaweed is described twice as more sensitive to light (line 240) and culture conditions (line 105) - presumably compared to older specimens. Is the model sufficiently robust to be carried through over 3 different light stages (or indeed seasons mentioned in Figure 6)?
4) The M&M is a little thin regarding how other literature has been used to inform and project the model (equation) over greater time periods and culture conditions. Granted, supplementary material is provided, but it is qualitative and discusses mainly other genera and species. Is it possible to show how additional data was used?
Validity of the findings: See above.

Different LED colours and varying impact on seaweed production is overviewed, sufficient numerical data is provided.

The manuscript would benefit from review, aiming at the research and commercial seeding/nursery sector, as it appears too early a stage or scale to suggest this could be worthwhile to attempt at sea (in terms of results, never mind physically how it could be achieved and whether it is economically viable). An interesting and useful addition could be to investigate the energy and cost of the LED range vs fluorescence, with regard to the results of algal biomass with relation to quantity and quality (composition).

Best of luck.
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: ARTIFICIAL LIGHT SOURCE SELECTION IN SEAWEED PRODUCTION: GROWTH OF SEAWEED AND BIOSYNTHESIS OF PHOTOSYNTHETIC PIGMENTS AND SOLUBLE PROTEIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript was good throughout. Some minor grammatically errors are address in the general comments section.
Experimental design: The research revolves around the effects of different wavelengths of light on growth of two seaweed cultivars. The implementation of the lighting treatments was innovating and was designed to answer the questions at had.
Validity of the findings: The paper was short and to the point. Overall, the authors concluded that the use of LEDs increased the growth rate compared to fluorescent lighting. Furthermore, the increase in growth was fairly substantial and should be of great interest to the community involved in seaweed production.
Additional comments: Overall, the manuscript was well written. The authors were quick and to the point which is refreshing to see. They generally give enough information without over stepping the importance of their research.

Please find specific requests below:
Line 31: Maintained should be maintaining.
Line 46: ‘i.e. pollutants and nutrients flow into coastal waters’ should be re-worded to make the sentence easier to read.
Line 75: Change photosynthesis with photosynthetic.
Introduction: The use of different lighting qualities (i.e., wavelengths) is interesting. I suggest adding a few lines about how different wavelengths of light are able to penetrate water. Some wavelength can penetrate deeper then others and this may be valuable background information.
Lines 85 and 86: It is more traditional to say 12h of light followed by 12h of darkness.
Line 93: I believe there is supposed to be a reference to figure 1 at this point.
Figure 2: The Y-axis should not be labelled absorbance. Absorbance indicates that you measured how well the seaweed absorbed each wavelength of the lighting treatment. Instead, I suggest the Y-axis be labelled fraction of peak wavelength or something as such.
Line 106: Replace settled with placed.
Line 122: Italicize the a after chlorophyll throughout the manuscript. Change photosynthesis with photosynthetic.
Line 125: Change all absorbances with Chlorophyll a and carotenoid content. Although you are measuring the absorbance with the spectrophotometer, it is more correct to say you’re measuring the content itself.
Line 148-149: Change white-LED light is stimulating seaweed growth with white-LED light stimulated seaweed growth. Also remove ‘as’ before compared.
Line 176: Replace as compared with compared to.
Discussion section Light driven shifts in seaweed growth: Again, I believe there should be some discussion about the light penetration within water between different wavelengths. This may provide further insight into why some treatments worked better than others, specifically when compare both white light treatments (LED vs. fluorescent).
Line 208: Change difference with different.
Line 233: Change interfere the in-door cultivation temperature with interfere with indoor cultivation temperatures.


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: ARTIFICIAL LIGHT SOURCE SELECTION IN SEAWEED PRODUCTION: GROWTH OF SEAWEED AND BIOSYNTHESIS OF PHOTOSYNTHETIC PIGMENTS AND SOLUBLE PROTEIN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: A clear, concise and well-structured manuscript with few typographical errors.There is sufficient background provided to support the aims of the work.

Literature references are mostly sufficient.  However see L222:  The authors comment on the similarity of findings of the effect of blue light on Dunaliella salina but should also consider more recent data on the effect of red light - see
Y Xu, PJ Harvey (2019) Red Light Control of β-Carotene Isomerisation to 9-cis β-Carotene and Carotenoid Accumulation in Dunaliella salina Antioxidants 8 (5), 148
Y Xu, PJ Harvey (2019) Carotenoid production by Dunaliella salina under red light Antioxidants 8 (5), 123

Correct Fig 3: gluorescent.
Experimental design: The original primary research is within scope of PeerJ.  The research fills an identified knowledge gap with respect to effects of LED light on growth and productivity of two species of seaweed
Validity of the findings: All underlying data have been provided and are robust, statistically sound and controlled.The conclusions are well-stated and limited to supporting results
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: ARTIFICIAL LIGHT SOURCE SELECTION IN SEAWEED PRODUCTION: GROWTH OF SEAWEED AND BIOSYNTHESIS OF PHOTOSYNTHETIC PIGMENTS AND SOLUBLE PROTEIN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall the re-submission shows clear evidence of sufficient alterations based on the three reviews and editorial comment.

The manuscript is much clearer and easier to read with additional references. I think the final proof would benefit from a final minor editorial from a native English speaker, really a final polish to remove redundant "the" and "and" throughout.

Line 58, it may add further importance if you state that large scale seaweed culture / IMTA may actually help reduce N pollution.

The graphs and diagrams are relevant and well realised, and the discussion relates to the results.

Thanks for including some reference to the reduced intensity of light, corresponding to depth and varying with different wavelengths. Only minor point is the "Intensity Reservation Rate" (S2) which I've not heard of before. Describing this as a "rate" would imply a change in x/y, i.e. perhaps % intensity reduction/cm in this instance. Perhaps the units need to be altered, or the measurement described differently.
Experimental design: Improved in line with above statements, No comment.
Validity of the findings: Significantly different and non-significant data clearly shown and discussed. Conclusion brief and to the point.
Additional comments: No 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: ARTIFICIAL LIGHT SOURCE SELECTION IN SEAWEED PRODUCTION: GROWTH OF SEAWEED AND BIOSYNTHESIS OF PHOTOSYNTHETIC PIGMENTS AND SOLUBLE PROTEIN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment.
Experimental design: Thank you for emitting the fluorescent light if there was not proper replication. However, this does take away a little bit from the paper. I suggest adding some in text references which can allow for some comparison. Such as preliminary results with fluorescent indicate that LEDs in general allow for __% increase in growth. You don't have to put the data sets back in, but some in text references would acceptable when used in limitation.
Validity of the findings: no comment.
Additional comments: I think the authors have addressed most of my concerns. I did notice a section was deleted which I like. It was related to the difference between brown, green, and red alga species. I thought that brought in a nice comparison. I also think the authors have results which they could strengthen this argument. In figure 3. from about day 8 onwards,  S. fusiforme has a higher growth rate than U. pertusa under white, blue, and green light. Why is this? you touch a little bit about species specific effects but I think you could expand that section slightly. In terrestiral plants, it is well known that plants with different canopy architectures utilize different wavelengths of light better or worst depending on plant compactness. Is this the same in seaweed. Admittedly, I'm not a seaweed physiologist, but potentially the morphology of  S. fusiforme allows for greater growth from those specific wavelengths?

In figure 2, the authors still have the fluorescent light spectrum which can now be taken out.


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: PROKARYOTIC COMMUNITIES FROM A LAVA TUBE CAVE IN LA PALMA ISLAND (SPAIN) ARE INVOLVED IN THE BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLE OF MAJOR ELEMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English is clear and unambiguous throughout the manuscript. The references are appropriate and sufficient. The structure of the article, the figures, and the tables are fine. The results are relevant.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: I enjoyed reading the manuscript ” Prokaryotic communities from a lava tube in La Palma Island (Spain) are involved in carbon fixation, methanotrophy and the biogeochemical cycle of major elements “.
This is a very thorough and comprehensive analysis of the microbial communities isolated at four sites of a lava tube in the island of Las Palmas in the Canary Islands. The samples were sequenced by NGS through the Illumina platform and were also analyzed by FAPROTAX software and PICRUSt2 to have an overview of the trophism of the microbial community also at the level of abundance of the single sequences. The enzymes associated with nitrogen, sulfur, methane metabolism and CO2 fixation were analyzed to construct an overview of community trophism.
I would like to ask the authors a question: are the four microbial communities independent from the outside or do they depend, at least in part, on external trophic inputs, in particular with regard to the carbon source.?

The work is certainly interesting and worthy of being published.

Line 52: change “lava tubes with those Mars” with “lava tubes with those of Mars”


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: PROKARYOTIC COMMUNITIES FROM A LAVA TUBE CAVE IN LA PALMA ISLAND (SPAIN) ARE INVOLVED IN THE BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLE OF MAJOR ELEMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript intitled "Prokaryotic communities from a lava tube in La Palma Island (Spain) are involved in carbon fixation, methanotrophy and the biogeochemical cycle of major elements" is well written and clear, in my opinion no English revision is required.
Literature references  are appropriate. I suggest to check if all of them are in Italic in the text (such as refs in line 413 that needs to be corrected).
Structure is in line with the requirement of the journal.
Experimental design: Experimental design is correct. The aim of the research well defined
Validity of the findings: Findings are relevant because the lava tubes are a not well studied and conclusions are well stated
Additional comments: Well done 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: PROKARYOTIC COMMUNITIES FROM A LAVA TUBE CAVE IN LA PALMA ISLAND (SPAIN) ARE INVOLVED IN THE BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLE OF MAJOR ELEMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Your title is misleading. You mostly found chemoheterotrophs.

Overall the English is good and clear, but it is not sophisticated. It needs some copy editing. I have done some.

You keep using your sample code to discuss the results, like sample MZ03-10J, from a moonmilk formation rather than using the direct descriptor and calling it moonmilk. I suggest using the descriptor to make it easier for the reader than an obtuse code. Or both.

You keep being amazed that your moonmilk sample is different than the others. I’m not. I think you should look up some more moonmilk references. Portillo MC, Gonzalez JM. Moonmilk deposits originate from specific bacterial communities in Altamira Cave (Spain). Microb Ecol. 2011 Jan;61(1):182-9. doi: 10.1007/s00248-010-9731-5.

Abstract
"22-23 Lava tubes are particular caves due to their genesis and mineral composition different from
24 karstic caves."
Lava caves differ from karstic caves in their genesis and mineral composition. [lava tubes is a term that is a bit out of date due to changes in our understanding of how lava caves form. Suggest changing tube to cave. I do sometimes use lave tube cave.]

The subsurface microbiology of a lava cave in the Canary Islands…
You say “the most important volcanic archipelago in the Atlantic Ocean”, but what is that based on? You don’t return to that in the introduction. Justify that extreme statement. Refs?
29 comma after profiling
35 functions was were outlined
38 microbially-induced
49 replace the present with this
51 search for recognizable
52 with those of Mars
65 study of Canary
68 from the Canary Islands
68 replace ‘and with this aims’ with ‘so’ we focused
70	replace ‘presenting’ with ‘with’
Results and Discussion
178 0.5 1 m. Is this 0.5-1 m?
181 del; , as revealed by FESEM
189 space needed: substances(EPS)
193 in the analyzed samples
203 del to be discovered
205 del studied
218 process has
224 show
230-235 It is not remarkable that the moonmilk was different. The other three were slimes?
243 Isn’t Dadabacteria still a candidate phylum?
248 Not remarkable. Moonmilk is different.
370 from the others
393 underexplored
423 ‘highlighting on the rest of bacterial community where no presence was evinced.’ I am not sure what you are saying.
431 ‘in caves where methane usually reaches concentrations near to the atmospheric background levels.’ Not clear to me. How can you tell a difference from background levels?
434 responsible for most
436 You say ‘Recently,
436 Martin-Pozas et al. (2020) reviewed the role of methane-oxidizing bacteria in caves.’ Can you briefly state the role?
446 del studied [you have no samples that were not studied]
485 to uncultured bacterium. Should be; an uncultured bacterium, or uncultured bacteria, depending on how many. Also ln 492

Interesting discussion of moonmilk.
508 where it must have
512 karstic caves have lots of calcium carbonate; lava caves not so much, although there is an interesting case in Korea. Jeju volcanic island and lava tubes.
514microbially-induced
526 With abundances below 2%, we identified… [you have discussed Hyphomicrobium a lot in this paper. Why such interest in an uncommon oligotropic bacterium?]
550  ‘as a wide diversity of taxa are even found in different niches or substrata within the same cave.’ I am not quite sure the point you are trying to make. In and of itself it doesn’t make sense to me as your final conclusion, which should be your big insight.
These are mostly copy edits.
References: Really nice job.
PLoS is now PLOS
Jones is out of order
Lomakina. 12(1), 10;
Luis- Vargas. No space before Vargas
Miller and Garcia-Sanchez comes before Miller and Pereira
Omoregic J name not in italics

Riquelme and Hathaway is before Riquelme and Rigal. You’ll also have to change 2015a and 2015b in the refs and in the text

Spilde et al 2016. Name of J not in italics
Vaccarelli. Should you add an English translation of the title?
Wu. Should genus and species be in italics?
Zimmerman should follow Zhu refs.
Experimental design: Overall complete and thorough; meets your expectations. Some additional detail needed in description of the cave. and location and year of sample collection.

Materials and Methods
78  of the Canary Islands
85 in the last years; in recent years
90 So does this amount of rainfall make it a tropical rainforest?
95 in a southwest direction
97 replace ‘being its location’ with ‘located in’
100 jameo has about; replace with jameo is about
100 I don’t understand. Usually entrances are described in terms of width and height. Does length describe the length of the entrance passage? Does not strike me as large.
101 What is Erica arborea. Perhaps add common name.

Is the whole length of the cave 3.5? No. But confusing.
113 stored in sterile
156 del quotations, and ln 160, and 166
“pheatmap” is a new one on me! But I read about it. Nice use of it.
Validity of the findings: Why have the sample numbers been expanded to add another level of numbering? What does that mean in terms of what these samples are?

I think they have done an exceptionally good job of using figures and tables to support their discussion and conclusions.

Figure 1; good map. Show which samples were collected from each location.
Fig 2. Good, but delete ‘sample’ from in front of the sample numbers, and add a brief description.  Should MX08 have a hyphen like the other numbers?
Fig 3. E and F are so dark you can’t make out any details.
Fig. 4. Very nice. Add sample descriptor to sample numbers. i.e. moonmilk
Fig. 5. Is order the most appropriate level of classification? Less familiar to most readers, I think.
Fig. 6.  Add sample descriptors to sample numbers. Perhaps invert so that the most common functions are at the top?
Fig. 7. Add sample descriptor to sample numbers.
Table 1. Add sample descriptor to sample numbers.
Same for other tables.

Supplemental
SF1; Fire. What fire? Should this info be included in the paper? Why is it important, supplemental or not? Is it relevant to the current study?
SF2: add sample descriptors.
Additional comments: Nothing to add. I am impressed by the amount of information you had to work through with clarity and thoughtfulness.


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: MAPPING OPEN KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This article presents an exploratory analysis of 43 Australian universities using a unique dataset collected as part of the COKI Project (Curtin U). The article makes use of the Open Knowledge Institutions (OKI) framework (sharing some authors with this paper) to explore various dimensions of Australian Universities. In part, they discuss the way in which the available data can be used to analyze OKIs along three dimensions (all relevant to the concept of openness, according to the framework): diversity, communication, and coordination.

One of the article's strengths is the richness of the data analyzed, and the authors should be commended for making available detailed data used in their analyses. Making the data available and describing it are in and of themselves a contribution.

The article itself is clearly written, however, I fear that the main contribution to the article is somewhat lost in its presentation. More on this in the following section, but I would have liked to have seen something akin to research questions (RQs) laid out clearly at the end of the introduction. While I appreciate this is an exploratory study, the work is clearly guided by some RQs that are never identified as such.

With regards to organization, I would lastly note that the authors do not use the Results/Discussion/Conclusions in the traditional way. Their presentations of results is imbued with interpretation and commentary, while their discussions and conclusions are, as a result, left rather anemic. That is, the discussion is mostly found mixed in with the results and the discussion section is used to summarize the main results. While it is good to see a discussion section that walks us through these findings, I would encourage the authors to consider engage with the issues and literature that their article is addressing. That is, how do these main findings compare with what is already known? How do they shift the discussions taking place?

A note on presentation:
- It would make the paper a lot more readable if variable names were avoided entirely, and replaced with short common-sense names (eg. women_above_sl changed to "women above the rank of senior lecturer"). I understand this would add to the word count, but it would also make the paper much easier to read. This change, if adopted, should be seen in the text, tables, and figures. As an example of a paragraph I struggled to read as a result, see lines 227-235.
Experimental design: As hinted as above, I felt the paper was lacking clearly defined RQs. That said, I do think that the paper does explore some key issues that, had they been foregrounded as RQs from the outset, would have allowed the presentation of the richness of the data that the authors seemed to want to highlight. Three RQs are answered (to some extent), but never explicitly asked (naturally, these could be better formulated, but hopefully the following is sufficient convey my intent:
1. To what extent do the indicators available about Australian University cluster around the dimensions of openness proposed by Montgomery et al.? (ie. how "naturally" do the data fit into these categories)
2. How can these many indicators be used to capture the complexity of OKIs? (ie. How do these group together into Principal Components, and how many of those are necessary to capture the variance )
3. (perhaps the one least-well answered): How does having access to these multi-dimensional indicators change what would be a flat uni-dimensional ranking provided by league tables. (ie. how much do individual universities move in the rankings when more indicators are considered)

To be clear, answer to these RQs and the findings from them are presented in the paper, but the structure of the paper makes them emerge as secondary to the lengthy presentation of the underlying data, from which it is difficult, as a reader bombarded by the graphs and numbers, without guiding questions.

Notes methods:
- With the caveat that I am not an expert on statistical methods, I found the statistical comparisons to be appropriate and well-presented.
- I question the value of presenting both approaches to imputing the missing values for the purpose of the PCA. While I understand why the authors would feel compelled to try both, there appeared to be little different in the results of each, as least as far as they pertain to the main findings of the paper. As such, I suggest the authors indicate they did both, but present only one, since the conclusions remain unchanged.
- The use of Event Data requires further explanation, as it is not clear what this data includes, or to what extent it provides a useful signal (or of what).
- The use of the Walk Score is questionable, especially since this is an indicator, as the authors rightfully point out, of the university's geographical home and not of the characteristics of its openness—at least not a characteristic the university can do anything about. What is the point of including an indicator for which a university has no control? How does it change our understanding of how it functions, or how does it alter decision making? Do rural universities have satellite campuses? If so, are these accounted for in some way? This indicator raised more questions than answers for me.
Validity of the findings: Not sure if anything needs to be said here that isn't already captured in the above. I think the authors do draw valid conclusions from their data—namely that indicators for OKIs offer a more nuanced and multi-dimensional view of how institutions achieve openness.

Perhaps the only thing left to say is that, if the paper is to be revised along the lines suggested here, it would also require a more robust and targeted introduction/background section. The section, as written, glosses over the subject area without engaging with specific issues that need to be understood before the paper's findings can be interpreted (and that can then be re-engaged with in the discussion section).
Additional comments: There are a handful of statements that I flagged for myself in my initial reading. I point to them here without much detail, as they are not central to my critique of the paper (which is mostly structural):
- Why is Revenue the only additional indicator looked at, beyond the OKI indicators? What justifies including this, but not any other number of indicators that could be easily collected.
- The graph diagram of Correlations works really well to show clustering and strength of relationships. Going to use this one in the future, I'm sure!
- lines 301-308: this is discussion, not results (I had several of these, but I think this critique is clear enough above)
- line 238: don't think it's true most gold OA publications are archived. Is it?
- line 241: I don't think Bronze OA would be considered a "route" to OA
- line 317: distinction on what formats are included and which gets counted as OA by Unpaywall seems super important to emphasize.
- lines 377-392: those are a lot of questions that are never fully explored.
- lines 499-501: I wanted THIS discussed more. This is the key to the paper for me (my RQ2)
- lines 548-551: I also wanted THIS discussed more (my RQ3)


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: MAPPING OPEN KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This article is well-written. There are a few typos and errors (e.g. 'facing resource limits on l61, 'summaries' instead of 'summarised' on l572, spelling error on x-axis of Figure 11) which doubtless will be picked up by the authors in their final polishing.

The reference list feels rather short for an article of this complexity, and several authors appear multiple times, including one of the co-authors of this paper. However, this is perhaps not surprising, as researchers in open research are still a small band.

The figures and tables are complete and raw data is provided.
Experimental design: As this article is an exploratory study, there is no research question included but the rationale for conducting the study is explained.

The methodology is well-described and the methods of analysis are well-justified. I suggest the authors should make clear who exactly selected the 26 indicators they chose to collect data on. This is not stated. It would be helpful to know by whom they were selected, on what basis, and what if any review and justification method was in place, and who acted as the reviewer.

There is no indication that the authors applied for ethics clearance. It's entirely possible it wasn't considered necessary but if so, this should be noted.
Validity of the findings: For me, the Discussion and Conclusion lacked content, compared to the richness of the data and analysis in the Results sections. A summary of the findings is not a discussion. As the aim of the research was to 'evaluate the progress of OKIs and ... potential indicators for OKIs', this section needs greater reflection on the quality, robustness and value of the selected indicators - as an exploratory analysis, an evaluation of the indicators would provide the underpinning for further study and avoid repetition by other researchers.
Additional comments: My major criticisms come from the introductory section of the article. The opening paragraph (ll56-62) lacks evidence. If these are your contentions, then that needs to be clearly stated but actually, there is ample evidence in the literature on public engagement with research (e.g the Public Attitudes to Science surveys in the UK) and higher education to substantiate the demands and needs identified in this paragraph.

Lines 73-76 - the discussion of open access, etc., conflate open science and open access, which are not the same thing. This can be clarified, I believe. It is also worth mentioning that Plan S has been adopted by funders beyond the sciences, so is a movement for open research, rather than open science. And as above, statements such as 'there remain concerns about the broader commitment to openness in knowledge production and dissemination' should be justified by evidence.


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: MAPPING OPEN KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see the attached review.
Experimental design: This was not an experiment.
Validity of the findings: Please see the attached review.
Additional comments: Please see the attached review.


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

Input:
Title: MAPPING OPEN KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: see below
Experimental design: see below
Validity of the findings: see below
Additional comments: The authors have taken my recommendations to heart and have done a substantial revision in the organization of the paper. As a result, in my reading, the paper has been much improved. I hope the authors agree.

Important to point out that the core of the paper remains fundamentally the same—the data and methods are sound and the results have not changed—but the current version does a much better job at expressing the guiding questions and making those findings stand out in a way that was challenging in the first

I especially appreciated the new Discussion section which, in this version, adequately engages with other literature and compares and contrasts the study's findings with what can be found in the literature. It also much more clearly points out the ways in which the clustering of indicators can be useful for making sense of the multi-dimensional data.

I have no further suggestions for improvements and endorse the publication in its current form.


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: MAPPING OPEN KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised article meets the required standards
Experimental design: The methodology is greatly improved by the inclusion of clear research questions.
Validity of the findings: The Discussion is much clearer and well-separated from the Results and is a much clearer evaluation of the indictaors.
Additional comments: The revisions have greatly improved the paper and I am content that you have addressed all my 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: MAPPING OPEN KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTIONS: AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS OF AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: See general comments
Experimental design: See general comments
Validity of the findings: See general comments
Additional comments: I think that the authors have made very thorough and thoughtful changes in response to the reviews, and I'm happy suggest that the article be accepted. I have a few minor points to raise, but (unless other reviewers raise objections necessitating another substantive revision) I think these could be flagged as discretionary revisions.

1. Introduction: Research question 1 asks about how the indicators "cluster", which is perhaps mildly confusing given that this research question is seemingly investigated using PCA. Cluster analysis is used in the article, but not for this question.

2. Materials and Methods: "The “Walk score” also serves as a potential indication of university locations and demographic diversity." It's not clear to me why the walk score might be considered as an indicator of demographic diversity(?)

3. It'd be worth checking the figure numbering before publication (e.g., "Figure 13 displays the individual component plot for the first two PCs from the Spearman PCA" - I think this should be Figure 14?)

4. Results: "Columns are standardized (through subtracting by the column mean and dividing by the column’s mean absolute deviation) to cater for the different measurement levels. " - I think this should probably be "differing units of measurement" rather than "different measurement levels" (standardising via a linear transformation wouldn't do much to address different levels of measurement).

5. Discussion: "For example, our data shows that Australian universities have a relatively stronger focus on “Green OA” than “Gold OA"". Do you mean that the universities published more articles as Green OA than as Gold? ("Stronger focus on" is a little ambiguous).

6. Discussion: "Our findings suggest that while there has been progress on gender equity in the Australian context (Larkins, 2018), the level of progress for academic positions is disparate across universities". I have no doubt whatsoever that the *conclusion* of this argument is correct, but given that it's a claim about change (progress) over time it is not really a claim that is supported by this study's findings per se. Perhaps rephrase to avoid the implication that the study measured progress over time.

7. Discussion: "At least in theory, this potentially implies Indigenous and female academics may need to relocate (perhaps to more regional universities) to seek potential promotion opportunities". I think some might read this sentence as prescriptive (i.e., a recommendation for what female and Indigenous academics should do) when you probably mean it descriptively (that Indigenous and female academics may sometimes be forced to relocate to regional universities due to differing hiring practices). And then the rest of the paragraph provides a reason to be skeptical about whether it is in fact hiring practices that are responsible for the observed difference anyway, at least for Indigenous scholars ("the levels of Indigenous employment may be driven by local and regional demographics"). So perhaps you might prefer not to include this sentence.


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: SHIFTWORK, FUNCTIONAL BOWEL SYMPTOMS, AND THE MICROBIOME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript by Rogers et al. aims to determine the differences in the microbiota's composition and diversity between night and day shifts and among workers with functional bowel symptoms.
The writing is clear and contains sufficient literature references. The figures, tables, and data provided seams sufficient to describe the study.
Experimental design: The study is based on the amplification of regions V3-V4 of the ribosomal gene 16S to characterize the microbial communities in the collected samples.
The general methods seem adequate for the study. However, the authors should clarify some details of the sample collection and analysis pipeline to support their conclusions (see comments in attached file).
Validity of the findings: The experimental design of the study seems adequate to reach the established objectives. However, the authors should clarify the sample collection and analysis pipeline details to support their observations and conclusions (see comments in attached file).
Additional comments: The manuscript by Rogers et al. aims to determine the differences in the microbiota's composition and diversity between night and day shifts and among workers with functional bowel symptoms. A relation that has not been previously established by previous literature.
It is a well-written manuscript with a good experimental design. However, a few minor issues with the data analysis should be addressed before accepting the manuscript for publication.


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

Input:
Title: SHIFTWORK, FUNCTIONAL BOWEL SYMPTOMS, AND THE MICROBIOME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Language may have minor enhancements, some suggestions are provided in attached file

Littrature references are in aboundence, and cover the filed with good margin

The structure is good

Aim clearly stated, but should also be included in the Abstract
Experimental design: The research is within the scope of the journal

The ain is well defined and relevant

Intervention carried ouf with high quality technically and ethically

Methods description should include sttistical software used and level for statistical difference
Validity of the findings: The findings are of importance

All undrelying data have been provided

Conclusion is well stated, but should be specific about if a difference is statistically significant

Well discussed results
Additional comments: You have done a nice job with this study! I have marked some small issues where I suggest some change in the wording, or some more information added. Take a new language check before re-submitting.


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: GBP2 AS A POTENTIAL PROGNOSTIC BIOMARKER IN PANCREATIC ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: In this interesting work, authors showed a prognostic role of protein GBP2 in PAAD via assessment of the public data and the samples from their center. However, few issues need to be considered.
1, In the Abstract part, the Conclusion of this study is missing, and after the Discussion part, authors described the conclusion only use one sentence. This is against common practice.
2, Since GBPs play an important role in host defense against virus infection and the co-expressed genes of GBP2 were mainly associated with immune response, is there any possibility that the development of pancreatic cancer is related to virus infection?
3, In the Figure 2D, high expression of GBP2 is correlated to poor prognosis of PAAD. The representative diagrams of IHC corresponding to high and low expression of GBP2 should be showed.


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: GBP2 AS A POTENTIAL PROGNOSTIC BIOMARKER IN PANCREATIC ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 49, 170-174, 222, 252-254, the current phrasing makes comprehension difficult.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: 1. I congratulate the authors for their study design, analytical integration favors a comprehensive analysis of the research topic. If there is a weakness, it is in the conclusion (concerning the inconsistency that I have noted in point 2) that it should be
reviewed before Acceptance.

2.	Your analysis of microarray and TCGA-PAAD datasets has shown consistent results (Fig. 1B & 1C). However, these results are not concordant with your experimental results (Fig. 1E). Please explain this inconsistency.

3.	Your discussion needs more detail. I suggest that you increase explanation about the implication of the relationship between GBP-2 and the immune checkpoints to improve your discussion.
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: GBP2 AS A POTENTIAL PROGNOSTIC BIOMARKER IN PANCREATIC ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: EATING HABITS, LIFESTYLE BEHAVIORS AND STRESS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC QUARANTINE AMONG PERUVIAN ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: General comment:
The authors have studied the impact of COVID-19 pandemic quarantine in the eating habits, lifestyle behaviors and stress of Peruvian adults. Although this question has been addressed in some articles (reference 8-13 of the manuscript), none of them have been conducted in Peru, which is one of the countries with the highest number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19 worldwide. In this context I consider this a clinically relevant question to be considered for publication. However, current version of the article needs some revisions to be addressed before this manuscript is suitable for publication.

Major revisions:
1.	In line 82: the authors explains that individuals aged 18 years and over who were in Lima at the survey time and with a good precision of the self-reported weight and height (≥8 points on a 0-10 scale). Please specify survey time window (start date-end date) Please, add an explanation of the good precision criteria [i.e., Participants were asked on a scale of 1 (no accuracy) to 10 (total accuracy) to report how accurate they felt when answering this question].

2.	In line 115: the authors explain that eating habits scores were analyzed according to weight variation. Furthermore, weight variation was treated as a qualitative variable.  Please define the calculation of this variable.

3.	I consider that your results deserve more explanation. For example, in line 134, I suggest that the authors specify what they consider bad habits (i.e., almost 50% of the participants who gained weight answered that they had snacks between meals every day, p- value <0.03). Furthermore, in line 137 the authors could specify stressful scenarios results and Table 2-3.

4.	The PSS yields a total score that describes overall perceived stress. The authors used some questions from the Spanish versions of the SIT-Q and PSS. I suggest that the authors could consider the calculation of a total score for their questions. This Score could be used to calculate the impact of weight loss, adjusted by other variables such as sex in a regression model.

5.	In line 147, the authors explain that “comfort foods” leads to weight gain. Please define comfort foods in your country (i.e., comfort foods such as …, …, etc.).

6.	I am concerned about the control of individuals repetition in the current data. Some persons could have answered the questionnaire several times. Have the authors controlled the repetition of the population? If this problem was controlled, please add an explanation in material and methods. If not please add this problem as a limitation.

Minor revisions:
1)	In line 64-65. The authors quoted some literature about the impact of COVID-19 quarantine on psychological parameters (reference 8-10) and nutritional habits (11-13). However, some important publications in other populations are not referenced (i.e., PMID: 32759636, 33296868). Please consider adding them.

2)	In line 100-101: Please add Spanish validation reference for SIT-Q and PSS questionnaires.

3)	Please add some explanation to tables 1-3. For example, Table 1 reports absolute and relative frequency of eating habits and weight variation during quarantine. Relative frequencies were calculated by rows variables (Questions), etc.


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: EATING HABITS, LIFESTYLE BEHAVIORS AND STRESS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC QUARANTINE AMONG PERUVIAN ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a relevant study with important information about lifestyle during the pandemic period.
Experimental design: In methods:-
- I suggest that the article be revised, according to the items contained in the Strobe checklist.
-In the topic Study population and context, the authors said that they included individuals aged 18 years and over who were in Lima at the survey time and  with a good precision of the self-reported weight and height (≥8 points on a 0-10 scale). What is a good precision? Is it a questionnaire? It may be explained before.
-Exclusion criteria are missing. It is important to add it.
- In the ethics session, it is important to include the opinion (number) of the ethics committee involved.
-The discussion can be better elaborated because it discusses in a superficial way.
-I suggest including the strengths of the study at the end.
-References about teenagers, but which can be included in the discussion:Ruiz-Roso, M.B.; de Carvalho Padilha, P.; Mantilla-Escalante, D.C.; Ulloa, N.; Brun, P.; Acevedo-Correa, D.; Arantes Ferreira Peres, W.; Martorell, M.; Aires, M.T.; de Oliveira Cardoso, L.; Carrasco-Marín, F.; Paternina-Sierra, K.; Rodriguez-Meza, J.E.; Montero, P.M.; Bernabè, G.; Pauletto, A.; Taci, X.; Visioli, F.; Dávalos, A. Covid-19 Confinement and Changes of Adolescent’s Dietary Trends in Italy, Spain, Chile, Colombia and Brazil. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1807. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12061807
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: EATING HABITS, LIFESTYLE BEHAVIORS AND STRESS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC QUARANTINE AMONG PERUVIAN ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have studied the impact of COVID-19 pandemic quarantine in the eating habits, lifestyle behaviors and stress of Peruvian adults. Although this question has been addressed in some articles, none of them have been conducted in Peru, which is one of the countries with the highest number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19 worldwide. The authors have made the corrections requested or clarified the reason for not doing some of the recommendations. In this context, I find this article suitable to publish.


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: MAHALANOBIS DISTANCES FOR ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELLING AND OUTLIER DETECTION: IMPLICATIONS OF SAMPLE SIZE, ERROR, AND BIAS FOR SELECTING AND PARAMETERISING A MULTIVARIATE LOCATION AND SCATTER METHOD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: As a whole, I found this paper well written, concise and interesting. The simulations help the reader to assess how the method is affected by less-than-ideal conditions. I think however that the discussion section could be improved. In particular, I would suggest to the author to improve the discussion of the results in the light of previous work carried out on this issue.

On figures 4, 5, 6. There is a large amount of white space on these figures, which makes the plots difficult to read. The author should change the y-limits of the plot to focus on the curve. I understand that the author wanted to include 0/1 limits for the correlation, but including the value 0 here is not necessary.

Moreover, on figure 4, the results for MCD are difficult to see (the green curve is behind the orange curve and can only be seen by zooming on the curve). Is it possible to improve readability of this plot (e.g. using dashed lines)?
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: This paper uses a simulation approach to compare three methods to estimate the mean vector and covariance matrix of the niche when Mahalanobis distances are used for ecological niche modelling. The author assesses the effect of the sample size, error and bias on the results of the three methods, also varying the proportion of the sample used by the MCD/MVE methods to estimate the parameters of the niche. He concludes that the MCD and MVE methods can be useful to correct random errors when the sample size is large enough and when the bias is not too large. He also stresses the importance to report the parameters h and k when the methods MCD and MVE are used, and give some advice on how to set them.

As a whole, I found this paper well-written, concise and interesting. The simulations help the reader to assess how the method is affected by less-than-ideal conditions. I think however that the discussion section could be improved. In particular, I would suggest to the author to improve the discussion of the results in the light of previous work carried out on this issue. More precisely:

1. A large part of the discussion presently focuses on the normality assumption, though this aspect *per se* is not really studied in the paper (although indirectly through the study of bias): the author did not test how the shape of the niche affects the method used, so that -- even if this discussion is interesting -- it    should be shortened on this specific question, and be more related to the results of the simulations (see next points).

2. I really liked how the author tested the effect of increasing bias in sampling on the Mahalanobis distances. In my opinion, this is a very clear illustration of a point that will not be immediately clear to all readers: the author simulated a bias *by sampling randomly locations in the geographical space*: this resulted in an increased sampling intensity in environmental conditions more common in the study area. Of course, it is clear that when a sample is used to model a statistical distribution, the data collection must be considered ignorable in the model. However, in the context of niche modelling, not all users will understand that a random sample in the geographical space will often not be ignorable, resulting in a biased estimation of the niche parameters. Indeed, for other niche modelling methods used to estimate species distribution maps, it is generally recommended to sample the whole area of interest randomly (e.g., from Royle et al. 2012, Meth. Ecol. Evol., 3, 545--554: "*We emphasize the critical assumption required for statistical inference about species occurrence probability from presence-only data, which is random sampling of space as a basis for accumulating presence-only observations*". See also Kramer-Schadt et al 2013, Diversity and Distribution, 19, 1366-1379), since other methods basically try to separate presence and absence of the species on the area to model the niche shape. It is in my opinion important to stress that the apparent benefit of relying on presence-only data is only gained at the expense of collecting an unbiased sample from the ecological space (which will be rare with the type of natural history data considered in the introduction of the paper). Though attractive in theory, Mahalanobis distances as such may be of limited use when the sampling does not allow an unbiased estimation of the niche parameters (which will generally be the case), and MCD/MVE will often be a band-aid on a wooden leg when the bias is important, as clearly demonstrated by the simulations.

3. Note that, on this concept of bias, it may be interesting to relate these results to the approaches of Knick and Rottenberry (1998, JABES, 3, 311--322, who also studies the effect of biased sample on the D2), and the suggested solutions by Rotenberry et al. (2006, Ecology, 87, 1458-1464) and Calenge et al. (2008, Ecology, 89, 555-566). Note that their approach could also -- in theory -- be used with MCD/MVE estimated mean vectors and covariance matrices.

4. An important issue to be discussed in the discussion is therefore how unbiased data can be collected to calculate D2 (and how this sampling differs from other niche modelling method). In his simulations, the author supposed a multinormal sampling of the environmental space with the same parameters as those of the niche, noting that this is unrealistic. In other words, under this model, unbiased data for the estimation of $\mu$ and $\Sigma$ can only be collected when $\mu$ and $\Sigma$ are already been known. What does the author recommends in real conditions? Should the D2, even with MCD/MVE parameters estimation, be used at all with such data?

Some detailed comments follow:

line 106: I suggest to be more precise and replace "the finite rate of increase" with "the finite rate of increase lambda_f(x) of a population of the focus species in places with environmental characteristics x, where x is a vector containing the temperature and rainfall conditions".

line 115: please replace "the probability of detection" with "the probability that a population of the species is both present and detected in places with environmental conditions x" (to avoid confusion with what is usually termed "probability of detection", i.e. the conditional probability to detect the population given that it is present).

Equation (5): improve notation: replace P(d) with P_d(x) and \lambda_F, with \lambda_{F(x)}.

lines 113: I may miss something here, but how the assumption of a random sample from a normal distribution with mean \mu and covariance matrix \Sigma in the environmental space, followed by a subsample of this sample with a probability calculated with eq. 5 leads to unbiased presence data sampled from the niche? I can see on fig. 2b that the simulated value of \lambda_f is well correlated with $P(\chi^2_2 > D^2)$, but is there any theoretical argument for this result ? (or reference : Etherington and Omongdiagbe, 2019,  cited in the paper, does not describe it either).


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: MAHALANOBIS DISTANCES FOR ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELLING AND OUTLIER DETECTION: IMPLICATIONS OF SAMPLE SIZE, ERROR, AND BIAS FOR SELECTING AND PARAMETERISING A MULTIVARIATE LOCATION AND SCATTER METHOD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper explores the utility of Mahalanobis Distance (D^2) within ecological niche modelling and compares three methods for defining multivariate location (\mu) and scatter (\Sigma):
(1)	Sample mean and covariance
(2)	Minimum covariance determinant (MCD)
(3)	Minimum volume ellipsoid (MVE).
Exploring these three approaches is well motivated by the prevalence of errors and sampling bias found in natural history data and this motivation is well translated into the difference scenarios examined. However, the methodology for how samples (m) are simulated would benefit from further clarification and explanation. Several terms used do not match with how they are conventionally used in the literature. For example, on line 117 the author outlines how the probability of detection is calculated. To me, detection probability implies given a species is present in a location, there is uncertainty in whether it is observed. However, since this is calculated based on population growth rate (\lambda_F) it seems to be more akin to a probability of species presence/occupancy?  Ultimately, further clarification including an explicitly written out model at all levels is needed. More details may be found in included annotated PDF.
The literature well supports the use of MD as a measure useful in both outlier detection and niche modelling. A notable extension of this work to identifying extrapolation within these same niche models (i.e. species distribution models) is missing (e.g. Here be dragons: a tool for quantifying novelty due to covariate range and correlation change when projecting species distribution models. 2014. Mohsen B. Mesgaran, Roger D. Cousens, Bruce L. Webber) and would be a useful inclusion.
The article structure is clear. Figures are relevant, informative and clear.
I commend the author on their very well organized and clearly commented supplementary materials. Data acquisition, simulations, and figures are all straight forward to reproducible.
Experimental design: These simulations are clearly motivated, well reported, and easily repeated. Figure 3 is very handy for visualizing two of the three outlined scenarios. Adding an additional row providing a snapshot of different sample sizes (including m=100) might make it more representative of all three scenarios.
Validity of the findings: The findings are reported in an orderly fashion, link with the aims and objectives of the paper, and are connected back to previous literature’s findings where applicable. The reporting is well supported by Figures. Recommendations are clearly provided for future applications.
I question the requirement of normality underlying the use of MD for niche modelling. While it is true that multivariate normal data provides the convenience of D^2 following a chi-squared distribution, without this assumption you still have a measure of distance from a centroid location within some multivariate covariate space. It is still possible select some boundary(s) to guide how likely a location is within a more complex niche. I suspect that adapting the used in these simulations might require this normality assumption code (e.g. MASS::cov.rob() function), but in a more general context MD can be use without any underlying distribution assumption.
Additional comments: This is a well-written article and I enjoyed reading it for this review. Please see attached annotated PDF for additional comments. I hope my comments are clear and useful.


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: MAHALANOBIS DISTANCES FOR ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELLING AND OUTLIER DETECTION: IMPLICATIONS OF SAMPLE SIZE, ERROR, AND BIAS FOR SELECTING AND PARAMETERISING A MULTIVARIATE LOCATION AND SCATTER METHOD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Before I provide specific comments on the manuscript, I want to highlight some general aspects that I consider should be included in a future version of the manuscript:
a)	The manuscript needs a general check for long sentences. I highlighted specific paragraphs in the comments below, where adding a comma or re-phrasing the sentence could help convey the message better.
b)	I suggest including a definition of sample error and sampling bias and give examples of each of them. In the current version of the manuscript, it is not clear what are the sources of each and why are there relevant. This can be done either in the Introduction section or the corresponding subsections in Materials & Methods where the author explained how these phenomena were included in the simulations.
c)	I suggest adding an explanation of the meaning of the parameters of interest (similar to what the author included in the lines 108-109), mu and Sigma, regarding their relationship to the fundamental niche of a species in the Introduction, where the Mahalanobis distance is defined.
d)	The author only explored one set of values for the parameters of interest (mu and Sigma) which I think is enough to illustrate very well the central ideas of the study; however, by seeing Figure 1, it seems that the position of the center of the ellipses regarding the climate space defined by the area of study could influence the results from different methods. So, what would it happen with your results if the center of the ellipse is either closer or farther, to the highest concentration of points in climate space? Would you expect better/worse results under these scenarios? Maybe this can be added to the Discussion.
Experimental design: Overall, I think that the simulations presented in the manuscript were well designed and help illustrate important aspects that the users need to consider when using these methods.
Validity of the findings: In this manuscript, the author compared the performance of three methods to estimate the vector of means and the covariance matrix that defines a Mahalanobis distance in an ecological niche modeling context: the sample mean and variance-covariance, the minimum covariance determinant, and the minimum volume ellipsoid. With the purpose of providing recommendations regarding the selection and parametrization of these methods, the author explored scenarios that simulate different levels of error and bias (known to occur in real samples) together with different values for the sample size of species occurrences. These methods have been used in many recent papers without providing a justification of why it is reasonable to choose one of them among the others, therefore, I consider that the findings of the author will have significant impacts in the field of ecological niche modeling. Finally, the discussion on the assumption of normality will be central for future applications of the explored methods in ecological niche modeling.
Additional comments: Specific comments:
Lines 37-40: the first part of the sentence contains information that was already mentioned in the previous lines of the abstract, perhaps make the whole sentence shorter? For example: "It is critical that users of the minimum covariance determinant and minimum volume ellipsoid methods clearly report their parametrizations so the results can be interpreted correctly."
Line 48:  add “(occurrences)” after “species observations”
Lines 83 and 91: add a comma after “(Figure 1)”
Line 90: replace “However” by “On the other hand” (or equivalent phrase)
Lines 105-106: provide a reference
Line 111: it is not clear what the fundamental niche rate of increase means, please explain in more detail
Line 114: “occurrences, initially I assumed” instead of “occurrences I assumed”.
Line 115-118: what is the relationship between the probability of detection and sampling bias? Explain either here or in the Sampling bias subsection.
Lines 118-120: difficult to read, rephrase it
Line 138-145: difficult to read, rephrase it
Lines 170-174: add a reference to specific figures after each sentence, also, the whole paragraph is difficult to read, rephrase it
Line 177-179: difficult to read, rephrase it
Lines 194-196: is it possible that users have a sense of the magnitude of sampling bias and sampling error present in their samples? In which situations should the user be more concerned about the prevalence of sampling error/sampling bias?
Line 260-264: difficult to read, rephrase it

Figures and Tables:
I suggest adding labels or legends to the different panels of Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 that allow the reader to identify the different scenarios without having to look for the captions of the figure.
In Figure 1, the outlier is difficult to spot. I noticed its existence until it was mentioned in the text. I suggest modifying the figure, maybe by increasing the length of the axes so the outlier does not fall close to the margins of the figure.


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: MAHALANOBIS DISTANCES FOR ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELLING AND OUTLIER DETECTION: IMPLICATIONS OF SAMPLE SIZE, ERROR, AND BIAS FOR SELECTING AND PARAMETERISING A MULTIVARIATE LOCATION AND SCATTER METHOD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author has taken all my comments into account. He has made the M&M clearer and deeply reworked his discussion of the results. In my opinion, he took into account all my suggestions satisfactorily. I just have three final minor suggestions (see comments to authors).
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: My three suggestions are the following:

* I really appreciated the amount of work that the author has done by writing the new subsection "Reducing errors and bias" of the discussion, and in particular the comparison of presence-only vs. presence/absence data. However, since this discussion focuses on natural history observation data, and does not consider data collected specifically for niche modelling, the author should change the title of the subsection to "Reducing errors and bias in natural history observation data".

* line 267 (after "However, while presence-only techniques have minimal data requirements, it becomes harder to detect and manage bias because the absence and background data can provide useful contextual information"), I think that it would be important to stress *explicitly* that your study illustrates clearly how a random sample in the geographical space will in most cases result in a biased inference of the niche with the MD approach. The paper of Albert et al. (2010) stressed by the editor is indeed an interesting reference for this point: Albert et al. showed the importance to sample in the appropriate sampling space: a random sampling in geographical space will not lead to a representative sample in the climatic space, and your study illustrates clearly that this will be of the utmost importance for MDs. It would be interesting to stress this point, even if this section focuses on natural history data (just two sentences to explain explicitly this point would be enough and add a lot of value to this discussion imho).

* A very minor point regarding the notation: I thank the author for taking into account my comment regarding the notation \lambda_f and P_d to \lambda_F(x) and P_d(xi) respectively. The author may want to put the "(x)" in normal font (i.e., not subscript -- only F and d would be in subscript) to make it clear that it is lambda (resp. P) that depends on x and not F (resp d).


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: MAHALANOBIS DISTANCES FOR ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELLING AND OUTLIER DETECTION: IMPLICATIONS OF SAMPLE SIZE, ERROR, AND BIAS FOR SELECTING AND PARAMETERISING A MULTIVARIATE LOCATION AND SCATTER METHOD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper looks great. Revisions have been incorporated and addressed nicely.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: It is clear that you considered and addressed each comment and provided clear responses and updates to the manuscript. Wonderful work!


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

Input:
Title: MAHALANOBIS DISTANCES FOR ECOLOGICAL NICHE MODELLING AND OUTLIER DETECTION: IMPLICATIONS OF SAMPLE SIZE, ERROR, AND BIAS FOR SELECTING AND PARAMETERISING A MULTIVARIATE LOCATION AND SCATTER METHOD
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: As a whole, I found the second version of this manuscript clear, well-written, and concise. The concepts of error and bias in occurrence samples are now clear and the author provides simulations that help the reader to assess how each method is affected by different levels of error and bias. The new version of the Discussion section provides insightful comments regarding the use of the three analyzed methods in ecological niche modeling. I am sure the readers will find this work interesting and useful. Finally, all the figures were improved and look neat.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: All the comments I made to the original manuscript well satisfactorily addressed by the author and I have no further suggestions.