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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECTS OF HIGH VERSUS LOW TALKER VARIABILITY AND INDIVIDUAL APTITUDE ON PHONETIC TRAINING OF MANDARIN LEXICAL TONES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language is generally clear, although there are many spelling errors that should have been corrected prior to submission. I have listed many of them in my line-by-line comments, but the authors need to put more care in proofreading the document.

In general, the paper could do with some streamlining for clarity. It comes across like a dissertation, and this impression is further enhanced when the reader encounters figure labelling in text that seems to match a dissertation rather than this journal manuscript. The authors could cut the manuscript down by a couple of thousand words by looking carefully at the flow of information and critically assessing the relevance of all points. For example, Sadakata and McQueen is reviewed first at line 109, then again on line 192 (as if it is being introduced for the first time).

Do the authors have permission to include the pictures in Appendix A? On line 346 the authors state that they are from "free online clipart databases", but do the licenses of these sites allow for republication?

Raw data are supplied, but the RMarkdown cannot be executed because the following files have not been supplied: CSTC-curve.csv, Word Repetition.csv, Picture Naming.csv.

The data presented in Discrimination.csv are a little confusing because they do not appear to preserve the original order of the stimuli. They are listed as Same1, Same2, and Diff, but there is no record of which position each stimulus was presented in.
Experimental design: The research is relevant, although the authors have not convincingly explained why they made the methodological choices they did. That is, they described the differences between their study and those of Perrachione et al. and Sadakata and McQueen, but they did not justify those choices (line 249). Why is it beneficial to use real Mandarin words instead of pseudowords? What differences do the authors predict in their results due to their inclusion of the fourth tone? Why did the authors choose a word learning task, and how might this affect the predictions, relative to previous studies?

The investigation appears to have been performed to a high technical standard. The methods are certainly described in detail. This could be streamlined somewhat.
Validity of the findings: In a number of the figures, the violin plots suggest that there is at least one participant scoring zero on one or more of the conditions (e.g., Figure 4, Figure 5). Looking at the raw data (in Production_all.csv), there appears to something odd going on with Subject 48. Much of the data for Subject 48 has been coded as 0. Are these missing data? It seems that these 0 values have been included in the analysis, which may explain the apparent outliers in Figure 4. There appear to be other cases in that data file where there are zero values (e.g., over 360 lines of data have "Tone" coded as 0). If these zero values have been included in the analysis, then all of the results could be incorrect. The authors must clarify this as it suggests that the data presented may not be robust.
Additional comments: I commend the authors for undertaking this interesting study. There is a lot to read, which makes the text a little difficult to digest, but the research is timely. The failure to observe an effect of variability is problematic. To suggest that previous findings may be incorrect, on the basis of a null result, is over-interpreting the data. There is a lot of work involved in providing all of that raw data, and I appreciate the RMarkdown. It would be helpful if the data were provided in a format that makes it easy for the reader to recreate the analyses. As it turns out, the results include some aspects that need further clarification, in particular the apparently floor performance of at least one participant in a couple of tasks. My own inspection of the raw data raises the question of whether this apparently floor performance may be due to the inclusion of missing data in the analysis. I was unable to check this in R because the RMarkdown required data files that were not provided. I hope that the authors are able to clarify that aspect. If the data presented are a true reflection of performance, then the authors will need to explain the apparently poor performance of that participant in Figures 3 and 4.

While reading the document I made line-by-line comments. I hope that these assist the authors in further revisions of the manuscript.

Line-by-line comments:
Abstract, lines 29-30. "different variability training" is vague. Does this mean that the two types of high-variability training do not differ from each other, or that there was no difference between high and low?

line 38. Grammar - "this task is particular difficulty"
line 39. "the same acoustic properties" is vague. Exactly what do you mean?
line 46. Please specify what "it" is.
line 48. "Pisonni"->"Pisoni"
line 70, and throughout. Phonetic symbols do not need to be in italics. In fact, it's a little distracting.
line 74. "to both" -> "both to"
line 82. It is not "so-called" - it is simply the HVPT.
line 104. It sounds like the empirical review that follows is providing examples of studies which have not explicitly tested high vs low variability training, but it seems to be providing examples of studies which have compared the two. This sentence needs to be clarified.
line 118. This paragraph would benefit from a conclusions. It is not clear what the reader is supposed to infer from this review.
line 125. "which" -> "that"
line 127. "(2014) which" -> "(2014), which"
line 131. They show greater learning that what? Please provide the comparison.
line 135. "exists" is clumsy. I suggest rewording this sentence starting with "Lexical tone is…". This will also have the positive effect of putting the topic of the sentence at the beginning.
line 142. "while languages such as English" -> "while non-tonal languages such as English"
line 182. What are the three standard diacritics?
line 200-201. Should the correct response be 1 for this example?
line 211. "continua" -> "continuum"
line 220-221. Choose a consistent spelling for benefited/benefitted.
line 236. Sadaka -> Sadakata
line 238. "in this study" - Do you mean "in that study"?
line 313. add a unit - i.e., 12.6 years.
line 351. taker -> talker
line 359. pitch -> fundamental frequency
line 381. I do not find these abbreviations to be self-evident. They make the text difficult to follow. PCPT is defined many pages earlier and the reader will likely need to turn back to be reminded what it stands for. The CSTC is not defined in the text (only in Table 2 and Figure 1). I suggest spelling the tasks out in full in the text. If not, both abbreviations should be defined in the text.
line 439. White noise would certainly prevent participants from being able to access the item in echoic storage, but I'm not sure that it would prevent rehearsal using the phonological loop. Articulatory suppression would be needed to achieve that.
line 465. condition->conditions
line 513. I thought that LME stood for linear mixed effect model, not logistic mixed effect model.
line 523. ensued -> ensured
line 624. Figure 3.3.1.2. This figure label does not appear to be related to this particular document.
line 658. Figure 3.3.2. Ditto. Many other figure numbers to not match those in this manuscript.
line 663. "accidental" -> "incidental"
line 822. "naming task" -> "picture naming task". A naming task involves reading out letter strings.
line 855, Section 4.2. The authors should refer to Strange and Shafer (2008), who review the varying demands of different discrimination tests (AX, AXB, and Oddity). Strange, W., & Shafer, V. L. (2008). Speech perception in second language learners: The re-education of selective perception. In J. G. Hansen Edwards & M. L. Zampini (Eds.), Phonology and second language acquisition (pp. 159-198). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
line 863. Something wrong in this sentence around "speakerin"

Table 1. Staring Age -> Starting Age

Figures. Trained vs. untrained needs to be explained in the figure captions where relevant. It gives the reader the impression that there were trained and untrained groups, rather than items that were included in the training set or novel.

Figure 4. There seem to be some outliers in the post-test, with at least one participant apparently scoring zero (if I understand the violin plots correctly). Same in Figure 5.

Figure 6. The order for trained and untrained is reversed here relative to the previous figures. Be consistent.

Figure 10. Why are these violin plots lower quality than those in previous figures?


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECTS OF HIGH VERSUS LOW TALKER VARIABILITY AND INDIVIDUAL APTITUDE ON PHONETIC TRAINING OF MANDARIN LEXICAL TONES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I thank the authors for their careful attention to the reviewer comments and substantial revisions to the paper. I found it to be a much clearer and more enjoyable read this time around.

I also appreciate the authors' commitment to replicability and open science by sharing their data and analysis scripts.

Here are some typos that need to be corrected:

Line 212, typo: generalisationParticipants

Line 234: in particular or particularly

Line 239: what does “s” mean?

Line 288: impact the interaction, rather than impact on

Lines 365-366: ) after Committee) and / after approval/ don’t seem necessary

Line 377: extraneous ) at end of sentence

In line 448 and many others, this text appears: Error! Reference source not found, please check and correct these

Line 842: hyphen should be an en dash

Line 941: should be Perrachione et al. (2011), not 2012; please also make this change in footnote 1

Line 1152: extra set of parentheses

Line 1191: “impact upon” sounds funny--"affect" maybe?

Line 1224: parentheses are closed but not opened

Line 1233-1234: wording is confusing—you say both studies found the interaction with untrained voices but it seems like those should be contrasting statements

Parts of the boxes in Figure 1 seem to be cut off (at least in the pdf copy).
Experimental design: Although some justification for their extension of previous work was provided (mainly for purposes of ecological validity), I would still like for the authors to spell out why they might see differences between non-words and real words more clearly in the manuscript. Ecological validity is a fine motivation, but it seems like there is also motivation from previous literature, which will make this a more scientifically interesting contribution in addition to an educationally relevant contribution. In general I thought the motivation for the current study was better articulated in the rebuttal letter than in the manuscript, and I think the manuscript can be improved by including the following points that were included in the rebuttal letter:
-A more explicit description in the manuscript about the relevant acoustic differences that have been found in non-words vs. real words and why we might expect different results from real word stimuli from the previous studies that have used non-words: For example, a quick skim of the two references cited in the rebuttal letter seem to imply that non-words are sometimes hyperarticulated/some acoustic differences are exaggerated, which could mean non-words are easier for non-native listeners to learn. I did like the justification in lines 277-278 that using real words presents the learner with both non-native segmental and suprasegmental information simultaneously.
-A brief discussion similar to the paragraph from the rebuttal letter starting with "We did not have precise theoretical predictions about how these changes – which generally increase the difficulty of the learning task – might affect the key finding of the previous work..." would improve the current study section of the introduction because it would give the reader a clear idea of some of the potential differences that could be seen from the extensions from previous work that this study carries out.
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: THE EFFECTS OF HIGH VERSUS LOW TALKER VARIABILITY AND INDIVIDUAL APTITUDE ON PHONETIC TRAINING OF MANDARIN LEXICAL TONES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

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: THE EFFECTS OF HIGH VERSUS LOW TALKER VARIABILITY AND INDIVIDUAL APTITUDE ON PHONETIC TRAINING OF MANDARIN LEXICAL TONES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The basic reporting fine.
Experimental design: The experimental design is fine.
Validity of the findings: The findings appear to be valid. I am not an expert in the Bayesian approach to null hypothesis testing. I am aware that it is becoming more popular, and its inclusion in this manuscript is welcome, but I am not well placed to judge whether it was conducted correctly.
Additional comments: The manuscript reads much more clearly now. The authors have clearly gone to a lot of effort to streamline the presentation and to respond to the reviewers' comments. It certainly does not read like a dissertation anymore. That said, there is still a lot to take in with this paper and I think readers are going to find it difficult to digest. That is a consequence of the complicated design and do not think that there is much more that the authors could do to improve that.

I think the manuscript is nearly ready for publication, but I need to point out that there is still evidence of inattention to detail in this manuscript. I have listed some of that evidence in my line-by-line comments below. I have not checked the data in the supplemental materials for this version. I went to the supplementary materials when reviewing the last version because the figures led me to question the data. I have no reason to inspect the data files this time. Reviewers should not be expected to check whether analyses have been conducted without errors, so I hope that the continued infelicities found in the manuscript are not also evident in the data.

In sum, I commend the authors for undertaking this interesting study. A lot of weight has been given the Lively/Logan/Pisoni/Bradlow papers and we need studies to question the accepted wisdom about the benefit of HVPT.

Line 130. Adaption -> adaptation
Line 212. Something has gone wrong here. Is there something missing?
Line 234. Particular -> particularly
Line 258. Sadakaka?
Line 267. I can't see where those models are discussed. Mentioned, perhaps. But discussed, no.
Line 292. What is "s"? I presume it's "speaker" but this really needs to be spelled out.
Line 448. In future, please check the final submitted manuscript carefully before submitting.
Line 546, 549, 552. In future, please check the final submitted manuscript carefully before submitting.
Line 553. )) -> )
Line 744. ....
Line 1152. Delete ()
Line 1187. Younger than who?
Line 1215. Where as -> whereas


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: FUNCTIONAL GROUP BASED MARINE ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT FOR THE BAY OF BISCAY VIA ELASTICITY ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Meets all standards
Experimental design: Meets all standards
Validity of the findings: Meets all standards
Additional comments: In this manuscript , the authors apply state-of-the-art analytical methods to address an extremely important issue in fisheries ecology – structural stability of functional groups in response to exploitation in a fishery ecosystem.  Elasticity analyses are used very effectively throughout the paper to address this key issue and to convey main results.  I strongly support publication of this paper following some revision  It is a nice complement to a series of important papers on the Bay of Biscay ecosystem published over the last decade or more.  Some general points are provided below.
1)	 The concept of elasticity is very clearly defined in the paper.  As noted above, I think it is very valuable. My sense though is that some readers may not be familiar with its use and its relationship to the perhaps more familiar concept of sensitivity analysis.  There may be some merit in stating that it is a non-dimensional sensitivity analysis using proportional changes to permit direct comparison of the relative effect of changes in different parameters measured in different units (or something to that effect).
2)	It may be worth mentioning that the general lessons from this analysis are (perhaps not surprisingly) consistent with that of Bell et al. (2014) in their analysis of the Celtic Sea using the same species groups.  So although the geographic area is not precisely the same, a different time period (1987-2004) was covered, and somewhat different model structure  (with explicit incorporation of fishing pressure), treatment of fleets,  and analytical method (non-Bayesian) was used,  many of the same messages emerge where direct comparison is possible.
3)	Figure 5 does not seem to be described in the text.  I think this is a pivotal figure and it deserves careful evaluation.  In examining this figure, I was left wondering about how best to deal with the issue of the elasticity of the density-independent parameter, particularly in relation to fishing pressure.  If  f  > r the population rate of change will of course be negative.  It wasn’t entirely clear to me if the points made on negative values of r (lines 245-255) capture the issue mentioned above.  The treatment  in the lines cited above seems to deal just with ri.   But I’m wondering about  ri-fi. since resilience to exploitation will depend on the relative magnitudes of ri and  fi..  Put another way, doesn’t  interpretation of  Figure 5 for the different functional groups involve conditioning on ri to understand the fishing elasticities shown in this figure?  In any event, a section needs to be added to the paper to deal with this figure if it is to remain.
4)	The paragraph in lines 534-543 needs work.  The second sentence seems to be missing something. The following two sentences seem to be a non–sequitur.  The first of these two lines points to uncertainty in detecting a bottom up effect.  In the following sentence in which we expect an explanation, an explanation for the difficulty in detecting top-down effects is given.


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: FUNCTIONAL GROUP BASED MARINE ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT FOR THE BAY OF BISCAY VIA ELASTICITY ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
> The English level is undoubtedly professional.

The article must be written in English and must use clear, unambiguous, technically correct text. The article must conform to professional standards of courtesy and expression.
> Same comment as above.

Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
> The provided litterature is suffisient.

The article should include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced.
> The added value of that study is not clear enougth and must be shown in a more explicit way given the litterature.

Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
> Undoubtedly professional.

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

Figures should be relevant to the content of the article, of sufficient resolution, and appropriately described and labeled.
> Figures/tables are nice.

All appropriate raw data have been made available in accordance with our Data Sharing policy.
> Raw data are provided by the authors.
Experimental design: Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
> The content of that manuscript is in line with those of PeerJ.

Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap. The submission should clearly define the research question, which must be relevant and meaningful. The knowledge gap being investigated should be identified, and statements should be made as to how the study contributes to filling that gap.
> Research questions are not well defined. Same comment for the knowledge gap.

Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard. The investigation must have been conducted rigorously and to a high technical standard. The research must have been conducted in conformity with the prevailing ethical standards in the field.
> Numerical analyses are particularly developed and sophisticated.

Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate. Methods should be described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator.
> Methods are not enough explicit and thus not replicable, which my main concern for that manuscript.
Validity of the findings: Decisions are not made based on any subjective determination of impact, degree of advance, novelty, being of interest to only a niche audience, etc. Replication experiments are encouraged (provided the rationale for the replication, and how it adds value to the literature, is clearly described); however, we do not allow the ‘pointless’ repetition of well known, widely accepted results.
> The results obtained are not ‘pointless’ repetition of well known results but suffer from an explicit description an explanation.

Data is robust, statistically sound, & controlled. The data on which the conclusions are based must be provided or made available in an acceptable discipline-specific repository. The data should be robust, statistically sound, and controlled.
> The data used seem robust.

Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results. The conclusions should be appropriately stated, should be connected to the original question investigated, and should be limited to those supported by the results.
> Conclusions are particularly hard to read and understand. However, I am convinced that manuscript could benefit from a simplification of the writing.

Speculation is welcome, but should be identified as such.
> To my point of view, any speculation was made here.
Additional comments: The manuscript submitted by Hosack and Trenkel is impressive by his huge amount of data mining but is extremely hard to read and understand on a biological point of view. To convince a broader panel of scientists, I highly suggest to render the manuscript more simple, especially concerning statistical investigations. The manuscript could benefit from a more simple description of numerical methods. Moreover, the link between numerical investigations and ecological considerations could be improved: the reader often have to switch from statistical to ecological paragraph, which is pretty disruptive and then render the overall story very hard to understand. In all cases I’m convinced the paper could be useful but clarification is needed, like for example enumerating clear questions at the end of the introduction part. The hierarchy between objectives in terms of priority must be clearly stated. As an example, in the abstract, several objectives are mentioned : ”The potential impacts of historical fisheries management on functional groups are estimated”, “The importance of density dependence, such as top-down versus bottom--up ecosystem regulation, is also investigated”, “The long term response of the ecosystem to a range of management scenarios is also investigated”. We also can read “We then propose to evaluate ecosystem response to perturbations by investigating elasticities » at the end of the introduction, which creates some confusion on the real aim of that study. My main suggestion is to provide a manuscript written in a way that other scientists could reproduce same investigations on 'their' own datasets.


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: HORSE PHENOTYPING BASED ON VIDEO IMAGE ANALYSIS OF JUMPING PERFORMANCE FOR CONSERVATION BREEDING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The topic of the paper is important due to the problems connected with conducting preventive breeding of horses in different countries. One of such problems is the opinion on horses from such breeding that due to the stabilizing selection of their utility value is low. The situation may be harmful for those horses during subjective assessment of judges which subconsiously assess the individuals covered with protection assessed by assumption as worse. As it is commonly known, it is very often inconsistent with the real situation.
1.	Generally the work may be published in Peer J, however the major revision will be necessary. First of all, the hypothesis in my opinion is wrongly formulated. The Authors should assume that horses are assessed worse despite their jump parameters are comparable to the undangered horses. The purpose of the paper is to compare the results of measurable and immeasurable assessment  of two race groups, and then selection of the incoherent assessments with the jump parameters. Maybe in the future the assessments should not be taken into account and they should be replaced with others.
Experimental design: A description of the experiment is proper, however the results concerning average and SD contained in statistical methods should be transferred to the result chapter. Please provide the distance from the obstacle filmed. Did the filing take place the same day as the assessments of judges? It is not clear for me.
Validity of the findings: It is necessary to reedit the final arrangements for adjusting to the purpose of the paper proposed by me.
Additional comments: Please reedit the text with reference to the new purpose of the paper. The discrepancies between the subjective and objective assessment have already been proved long time ago. However, for different reasons the subjective assessment may not not be deviated. Therefore it is important to prove which assessments and given by whom are wrong and why. The discussion should go in this way. In the present form the discussion is too long. Some fragments thereof are unnecessary, e.g. in for which purpose the authors consider reasons for subjectivism of the judge assessments. This is not the topic of the paper. The subjectivism does not refer only the assessment of the endangered horses. Besides I propose to calculate the correlation between the measurable and immeasurable features, I think that in this case the reply to the thesis of the paper will be more specific. Besides, think whether these discrepancies between the assessments and parameters are not reasonable. E.g. in case of the endangered horses the beam was higher but the legs lower above the obstacle. Maybe the fact caused such assessments and not others and do not cover separately particular features of jump. The summary as a result should be reedited.


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: HORSE PHENOTYPING BASED ON VIDEO IMAGE ANALYSIS OF JUMPING PERFORMANCE FOR CONSERVATION BREEDING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English in this article requires significant improvement to be suitable for publication. This reviewer is a native English speaker who found themselves reading the same sentence three to four times just to try and make sense of it. I can only imagine that for someone whose first language is not English, this text could be very difficult to understand. Some examples from only the abstract are below:

Line 21 – ‘…their characteristics seem not enough recognised’ is not proper English, and could be changed to ‘their characteristics are not well recognised’

Line 21-23 – ‘Precise phenotyping is the main requirement for further precise establishing of association with their genotypes so important for nowadays breeding.’ I believe what the authors are trying to say is that modern horse breeders require a precise establishment of the genotype-phenotype relationship in horses. Furthermore, that current approaches for phenotyping of horses have fallen behind the approaches for genotyping. Whether that be in terms of accuracy, throughput or both, is not stated. However, this summary is not clear from the quoted sentence and is only my best guess.

Line 23 – ‘Therefore a data’. Data is the plural of datum. This should read ‘Therefore data of Polish…’.

Line 24 – ‘…used to compare two jumping availability evaluation methods’ is technically correct but is much easier to read as ‘…used to compare two methods for evaluating jumping ability’.

There are far too many places throughout the text where English needs to be improved so I won’t give detailed feedback on all of them. Instead I’ll highlight cases where the mistakes in English could be misleading rather than just inaccurate.

Line 32 – ‘Linear and temporal variables of the jump were measured’. Do you mean ‘spatial and temporal’?

Line 33 – Nowhere in the text is it stated that GLM is short for ‘Generalized Linear Model’ or SAS is short for ‘Statistical Analysis Software’. These abbreviations must be defined the first time they are used.

Line 41 – The text appears to have decreased in font size half way through this line?

Line 72-74 – This sentence does not make sense to me. In the beginning I guessed it meant that variations in horse genomics could cause variations in the horse phenotype, specifically in the phenotypic traits used for genomics analyses. But ‘even if the criteria are named equally’ is confusing.

Line 78 – My background is not in horses or horse phenotyping so this question may have an obvious answer, but why is endangerment status used as the independent variable here? As I understand it, endangerment refers to how close a species is to extinction? You have later started that all horses are expected to be performance horses, so it is not clear to me how the level of endangerment would have a causal relationship with jumping variables? If this is an obvious misunderstanding on my part that will be understood by the majority of readers then please excuse my ignorance on the matter, but otherwise perhaps make the premise clearer in the text.

Line 121 – ‘All data based on their characteristic were checked’, what does this mean? You checked that they were normally distributed? Or something else?

Line 121 – ‘The means of subjective data were between 5.5-7.0 points’, is this for all three (free jumping, trainability and rideability) variables? The mean of each variable was calculated individually and the lowest one is 5.5 and the highest 7.0? This is not clear.

Line 124 – ‘mean elevation of the body above the obstacle during the bascule frame was 122.9-132 cm’, how can mean elevation have a range of 9.1 cm? Wouldn’t the mean of a set of elevations be a scalar value?

Line 127 – ‘The obtained results were analysed statistically by the variance analysis’. I’m not familiar with ‘variance analysis’ as a general term or technique, and a quick google search only reveals applications in finance and accounting? After this you reference a statistical model but give no real information about the model. In brackets there is GLM and ‘Mixed procedures’, but this is insufficient detail. An equation with labelled variables may be helpful. Furthermore the Generalized Linear Model and the General Linear Model are two different models. Without an expansion on the abbreviation or an explanation of the model used, it’s impossible to tell which is employed.

Line 133-134 – ‘Differences between levels of investigated effects were tested by the multiple comparison based on all pair ways test between the least squares means’. It is not clear what is meant here. Perhaps this is because the statistical model was not made clear.

Results and discussion sections – Confusion here may again stem from a lack of clear English and a lack of detail in the statistical model, but it appears that all results are based around the differences in measurement between endangered and non-endangered horses. If this is the case, why did this require a statistical model? With sufficient data a p-value can be obtained using the data alone. It also seems that there is a lot more room for interpreting these specific results, whether it be in the results section or the discussion section. For example, the trainers marked the non-endangered population significantly higher when it came to free jumping. Whereas the objective measurements showed that the endangered population elevated their body significantly higher. The discussion section explains why this is the case, citing time spent in the air in ‘against the clock’ competitions and that horses are expected to jump economically. This argument, and its counter-argument take up a large portion of the discussion section but do not cite numbers from your own results once. In fact data or results appear only once in the discussion section, when there is opportunity for them to be used many times. Another example is the issue of subjectivity, where the authors argue that judges’ or trainers’ individual experiences will affect their marking. This would have been a good opportunity to reference or compare the standard deviation of judges’ and trainers’ marks for the different variables.

Once again forgive me if I have misunderstood the motivation or analysis of the work, but could the authors also perhaps have tried to fit a linear model between judge’s marks for free jumping and the objective variables associated with jumping? With the hypothesis that larger values in objective jumping variables such as distance of elevation and total jump time would have an inverse relationship with subjective marks? This doesn’t seem to have been done yet as Line 131 states that the statistical model for subjective data was analysed separately.
Experimental design: The design of the experiment is sound. The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful. The emergence of automated and quantitative methods for phenotyping, to match the acceleration of genotyping techniques is present in many different fields. Using a video camera to measure different horse phenotypic traits and compare them to manual measurements will surely be a relevant study.

As described in the basic reporting section, the methods have not been described with sufficient detail and information to be replicated.

In terms of a rigorous investigation, for the subjective variables, the marks from the judges, trainers and riders seem to have been collected in an appropriate way. For the objective variables, data collection is also fine as long as the location and orientation of the camera is the same during all acquisitions. As the authors are recording two-dimensional variables from a three-dimensional scene perspective will play a part. For instance, if the camera is directly perpendicular to the jump, measuring height in centimetres using a linear scale placed at the same distance as the horse from the camera will be accurate. However pixels at different depths from the camera will have different real-world dimensions (cm’s) due to perspective, so the variable ‘lifting of every limb’ will not be accurate to the same “cm’s”. This is not an issue for this study if all horses are jumping from the same position and the camera does not move, as the distances used in the objective measurements will all have the same relative error. If the camera was set up at a new location, with a different distance to the jump and orientation, some error would be introduced.
Validity of the findings: I think that the findings and conclusions could have been much more clearly stated. The authors failed to use their own results to comprehensively show that their approach is necessary. There are two tables showing the difference in variable values between endangered and non-endangered horses for the subjective and objective variables, and they are shown independently. No real effort was made to show a correlation between the two. And, that analysis would not even require the distinction between endangered and non-endangered, but rather measurements at an individual horse measurement. Is the point of the study not to show that the objective measurements either complement the subjective ones, or reveal something that the subjective ones could not? Whether the data shows this, or it does not show it, is not discussed in depth.
Additional comments: If I understand it correctly I think the premise of the study is fine. But the English and presentation of results are so poor that I cannot tell if I understand it correctly.

I don't work in image-based phenotyping for horses but rather for plants. For us the goal is to use image analysis to either a) record large amounts of measurements that would agree with an expert automatically or b) uncover information that the experts could not. I think the premise of this paper is the same. But the results are so sparse, and so sparsely discussed and interpreted, I cannot tell if there is agreement between the subjective and objective measurements, or whether the objective measurements have found something new or they are more robust. This should be made more clear throughout the paper, in the introduction, results, discussion and conclusion.


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: MUSCULOSKELETAL MODELS OF A HUMAN AND BONOBO FINGER: PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION AND COMPARISON TO IN VITRO EXPERIMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an appropriately conducted and well described study, in which computational models of the human and bonobo finger are developed and validated against measured fingertip and metacarpal bone forces. The overall structure of the paper is well organized and appropriately incorporates and refers to existing work describing the anatomy and biomechanical behavior of the human and non-human primate hand. Raw data is shared and clear. Supplementary materials, including additional model verification in other model platforms, increase the confidence in the model results.

Minor comments:

Abstract: Here and generally throughout the use of metacarpal bone loading should be specified to indicate what exactly you are measuring/predicting and at what point along the bone. In the abstract in particular it is not clear that you mean force loading in the midsubstance of the bone as opposed to reaction force at the joint or stress state.
Line 92: change “…by implementing a human and bonobo musculoskeletal finger model” to “by implementing human and bonobo musculoskeletal finger models” to reflect that there are separate models.
Experimental design: This study explores whether an optimization approach can be used to develop a physiologically reasonable finger model that accurately predicts fingertip forces, and whether there are meaningful differences between the human and bonobo models to warrant the use of species-specific representation. The modeling uses appropriate established approaches and new experimental data to inform the simulations.
Experimental approaches are also rigorous and ethical use of human and non-human primate is documented. Although the sample size is quite small, this limitation is appropriately discussed and does not necessarily impact some of the conclusions regarding model sensitivity.
Validity of the findings: The raw data have been provided for the fingertip force experiment as supplementary data, and the new PCSA data for the bonobo specimen is included in the main document. The findings are supported by the data presented.

Line 295: Could you please comment in the discussion on which individual points (which muscles?) were shifted to the extreme values and if there is any significance to those with respect to which muscles are most affected by the optimization and the experiments themselves? Some of these issues are discussed with respect to the influence on the force prediction, but not the details of the optimization.
Additional comments: This an overall excellent study and manuscript. The primary limitation is the low specimen number, but most of the conclusions with regard to the sensitivity of the model predictions do not necessarily require a large sample size and the authors acknowledge this limitation appropriately.

Some additional attention should be paid in the discussion to the issue of generalizability of the models (as validated for isometric fingertip force) to tasks of interest such as those use for motivation in the introduction (such as knuckle walking). How generalizable is this model and what augmentations would be necessary to apply them for the types of applications with which you motivate the study?


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: MUSCULOSKELETAL MODELS OF A HUMAN AND BONOBO FINGER: PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION AND COMPARISON TO IN VITRO EXPERIMENTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No concerns. The paper is very well written, logically organized and easy to follow, in clear, succinct and professional English. Background and rationale are well defined and supported by references to published literature.
Experimental design: No concerns. The research is appropriately justified and placed in the context of gaps in the literature on the topic. Aims are clearly defined. The experimental design, data collection and analysis are, to the best of my knowledge, without error or omissions, and appear to have been collected with utmost care. Methods are described in detail.
Validity of the findings: No major concerns. Based on the information provided, the findings appear to be valid. Sample sizes are too low to determine statistical significance of any noted differences between the species (e.g., ratio of tendon loads to fingertip forces), but as this is a model-testing paper, this is appropriate. Discussion is succinct, limitations are recognized and addressed, and speculation is kept to a minimum (though see general comments).
Additional comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. The authors have clearly put a lot of effort into the design of the models, their validation and parameter optimization, and in the preparation of the manuscript. This paper will serve as a nice proof-of-principle that fingers can be modeled relatively accurately, but more importantly that they can and should be adapted to the species in question in biological anthropology, e.g., when inferring behavior in fossil taxa. I have only a few comments to suggest, relating to clarifications and expanding a little on the relevance to biological anthropology. Here they are, roughly in order with the text (by line):

L101 (and L417): Perhaps a sentence or two on the contexts in which the use of other species’ hand models are “warranted” would help to situate the study in the broader literature, and to justify why they would be necessary for comparative studies (e.g., because one-size-fits-all leads to potentially important underestimates of loads/stresses, etc).

L119: Body mass data for the samples would be helpful to gauge whether there are any differences in tendon morphology, architecture or PCSA.

L144-148: Could the authors explain why the loading conditions are at such a small fraction of the inferred tmax? Is it a constraint of the experimental setup (e.g., sutures rupture at higher loads, load cells have max range) or a biologically motivated decision?

L152-153: It might be worth explaining why the “unloaded” forces at the fingertip and MC are not zero, presumably because of some minor contact with the load cell or PP, respectively?

Table 2: It would be helpful to add a note to the legend here explaining that the ulnar interosseous has no separate portion that inserts onto the proximal phalanx in humans, unless there is another reason for the 0.0 values for this muscle?

L183: Could the authors clarify that the “fixed” aspect here refers to the fact that the via points cannot cross the joints in question, to contrast to the fact that they can shift proximo-distally within a bone?

L284: it would be helpful if the authors could define the direction of the shifts in broad terms, i.e., whether they are primarily shifts in the dorsoventral plane, or proximo-distally along the bone (or a combination of the two).

Figure 5: related to the above, it would be helpful to highlight a few of the via points that have shifted significantly in this figure, with arrows or boxes, especially e.g., for the via points proximal to the MCP.
Figure 6: Could the authors define a negative force in the context of these graphs? Because 0 is straddled by some values, it could be interpreted as moving from compression to tension, for example. Also, to me it seems more logical to plot measured on the y-axis, but this is a minor point.

Figure 7: Could the authors explain in the text in an appropriate location why the ‘hook’  modeling loading conditions for bonobos are so far off the experimental values? All others show good agreement except for this one.

L319 (and L403): It would be interesting if the authors could include information on stresses rather than loads, since they have CT data for at least the bonobo, they might be able to provide estimates of the joint surface areas at the MCP over which these loads are dissipated. Loads are one thing, but the stresses (loads/areas) would be more relevant to interpreting/reconstructing extinct hominin behavior as it is most likely these that would be reflected in, e.g., thicker cortices or more trabecular bone in the epiphysis. If the authors don’t have the data to estimate MCP area, then at least some acknowledgment that stresses are relevant too should be made at L319 or in the discussion at L403.

Minor grammatical/wording issues:

Abstract: In Conclusions, change “first attempt of implementing” to “first attempt to implement”

L56: Suggest replacing “investigate” with “understand the etiology” or “diagnose”

L80: Technically, there are no “intrinsic finger muscles”, which would be muscles originating and inserting in the finger. Change to “intrinsic hand muscles”

L329: change “ author’s ” to “ authors’ “

L366: “wider” is an ambiguous term in the context of epiphyseal size, and could be interpreted as the mediolateral dimension, which is not as relevant here as the dorsoventral plane, which I assume the authors are referring to, and is the proper plane in which to measure the moment arms of, e.g., the digital flexors. On that note, this statement conflicts somewhat with the data in Table 3 that suggests the moment arms of the FDs at the MCP joint are substantially greater in bonobos than in humans. This is another reason why having an estimate of MCP joint surface area could be relevant to identifying species differences in bone loading.


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: MUSCULOSKELETAL MODELS OF A HUMAN AND BONOBO FINGER: PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION AND COMPARISON TO IN VITRO EXPERIMENTS
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 appropriately addressed the concerns described in the prior review. I have no further concerns.


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: MUSCULOSKELETAL MODELS OF A HUMAN AND BONOBO FINGER: PARAMETER IDENTIFICATION AND COMPARISON TO IN VITRO EXPERIMENTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No further comments, the authors have done an excellent job addressing reviewer concerns and suggestions.
Experimental design: No concerns
Validity of the findings: No concerns
Additional comments: Thank you for the thorough revision of the manuscript, I believe it is much improved and I have no further concerns. I recommend publication, and congratulations to the authors on a great study.


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: IMAGE BASED QUANTITATIVE COMPARISONS INDICATE HEIGHTENED MEGABENTHOS DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE AT A SITE OF WEAK HYDROCARBON SEEPAGE IN THE SOUTHWESTERN BARENTS SEA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper provides an interesting perspective on the interaction between benthic megafauna and the characteristics of a hydrocarbon seepage site. Importantly, the authors find a strong association between the occurrence of hard substrates, in the form of carbonate crusts formed due to the seepage at this site, and the abundance and diversity of the benthic fauna. As the authors note, this is an important finding that highlights the significance of current or former seepage for understanding the nature of the benthic ecosystem. This paper adds to our knowledge of habitat heterogeneity associated with hydrocarbon seeps, and the implications for managing this environment.

Language – This is mostly of a high quality throughout. I have made some suggested edits in the General Comments below.

Introduction and background – these are well written and set the context well. Relevant references are provided. One area that could be expanded from the literature is a more general discussion of habitat heterogeneity due to variations in substrates, and its impact on benthic diversity and abundance. I have noted this below.

Structure – The overall structure is appropriate, but the addition of sub-headings to the discussion would help to provide a more coherent structure to this section. I suggest that the Discussion be rearranged under the following headings: i) seep morphology in relation to biota; ii) seep geochemistry in relation to biota; iii) implications of seepage for biota and marine management. There are also some results in the Discussion section that should be moved, and vice versa. I have noted these under General Comments below.

Figures – Figures are all relevant, but I do have some suggested edits. The authors note observations of gas flares from the multibeam data and bubbling gas in the ROV imagery. It would be useful to show this data and identify the location of these observations on Figure 1.
Figure 1 (top) – add a label for the Barents Sea
Figure 1 (bottom) – Add an outline to show the exact locations and extent for the Area A and B mosaics, and the observed gas flares and gas bubbles.
Figure 2 – Some of the symbols are very difficult to see on this image. Small polygons can not be easily distinguished from the crosses, especially since some of the colours for the polygons and crosses are very similar. The red and pink for the anemones and Sebastes sp. can also not be distinguished. It’s confusing having a mixture of crosses and polygons for the substrate and biological data e.g. sediment holes are crosses, but all the other crosses are biological; unknown organisms and microbial mats are polygons, but the rest of the polygons are for substrate characteristics. This needs to be presented more clearly, maybe with a separation between substrate and biological data into different figures.
Figure 3 – I cannot see the stone/rock polygons on this figure.
Figure 4 – Place arrows to identify seastars and different arrows (black vs white perhaps) to point to a few examples of the unidentified white biota.
Figure 5 – Although fairly evident, place a few arrows on this to highlight fossilised worms.
Table 1 – Add total density of fauna to this. For the individual counts, place the density first, with the number of observations in brackets for consistency to the order in which the polygon data is presented.
Raw data – This is supplied appropriately.
Experimental design: This is original primary research that is appropriate to the scope of PeerJ. The methods are clearly explained and appropriate. The research makes a useful contribution to our understanding of seafloor ecosystems, and their association with hydrocarbon seepage features. Further analysis of the nature of the microbial communities between the seepage and non-seepage sites would strengthen this study and limit the speculative nature of some of the discussion (e.g. from line 358). I wonder whether this would be possible based on the sediment cores collected? It is a shame that no cores were collected from Area B. However, the study is still useful in terms of understanding the habitat heterogeneity associated with seepage sites, and the influence that this has on the benthic ecosystem.
Validity of the findings: The analysis that is presented is appropriate for the data. With only 2 sites available the authors acknowledge that only general conclusions can be drawn, and their conclusions are well-constrained by the data. While the journal does support speculation, I found that there was too much speculative discussion regarding the significance of the unidentified organisms (Line 363-382). I also think that the authors need to reconcile the evidence for active seepage, such as the flares seen on the multibeam and the bubbles on the ROV images, with the absence of detectable sulphides in the upper layers of the sediment.
Additional comments: Line 111, 112, 118 – Do you have references to the seismic data, multibeam gas flares and bubbling gas that can be referred to here, or can you present any of this data?
Line 124 – what was the speed of the ROV across the seafloor?
Line 125 – replace text to “lawn mower fashion, to provide complete coverage, ensuring overlap between successive lines.”
Line 167 – replace text to “seen in mosaic A (Figs. 2-3, Table 1), while mosaic B…”
Line 169 – delete “could be animals that could not be identified at this level of resolution, but”
Line 171 – rewrite “The patches of small…”
Line 172 – Remove “However”, rewrite “Holes in the sediment were observed in similar quantities in both mosaics”
Line 177 – The addition of this animal at both the seep and background site increases the taxonomic richness by the same amount at both sites. The wording of this line implies that it only increases the richness at the non-seep site.
Line 182-184 – This belongs in the Discussion, not results
Line 187 – replace “what could be” with “possible”
Line 194 – replace “end” with “base”
Line 194 – “core P18-033” – do you mean core P18-031 here?
Line 194-195 – remove “the point at which”
Line 195-197 – rewrite as “detectable (43 um) at shallower depths in the sediments (10 cm depth), with a much lower peak concentration (327 um) at 17 cm depth. Below 17 cm sulphide concentration decreased, though remained…”
Line 198 – replace “till” with “until”
Line 199 – Delete “but”, rewrite as “(1.6 uM). Deeper…”
Line 202 – replace “they were not nearly as dramatic” with “though with a much smaller range”
Line 227-235 – this is repetitive of the results already presented
Line 237-242 – this belongs in the Results.
Line 239 – remove “ourselves”
Line 240 – rewrite as “seep site also likely exceeds the…”
Line 245 – replace “location in which the study was conducted” with “local characteristics of the study area”
Line 242-244 – It would be good to include a broader discussion and context of how seafloor heterogeneity in substrates influences the distribution, diversity and abundance of the seafloor fauna. Relevant examples for high latitudes would be literature relating to the distribution of dropstones e.g. Schulz et al., 2010; Post et al., 2017; Ziegler et al., 2017.
Lines 250-252 – The relevance of these examples to this study is not clear.
Line 255 – The comment that “seeps might function in a similar fashion as well” needs to be explained.
Paragraph 237-255 would be better placed in the context of the paragraph that follows. I think restructuring the Discussion as I have suggested above may assist in making a more coherent flow.
Line 276-287 – This belongs in Results
Line 294 – Full stop after “quantities”. Remove “and”. Start new sentence.
Line 297 – remove “Therefore, in this case”. Replace “of the” with “at this”
Line 331 – Remove “This would mean that”. Add “therefore” after “production is”
Line 369 – Remove “For example,”. Replace “ought” with “should”
Line 363-382 – This speculative discussion could be summarised by adding a sentence to Line 230 to mention the significance if these organisms are thyasirid bivalves. But given there is no certainty that these are bivalves, or seep-specific organisms, this discussion seems unnecessarily detailed.
Line 390 – The statement “local chemosynthesis based food production also contributes to the effect as well” is too strong given that this study does not provide conclusive evidence of a dependence of any of the organisms on a chemosynthetic food source.
Line 394 – add a reference after “diverse and abundant communities” to back up this statement. Also, this statement seems contrary to what is stated in other sections that sites of active seepage have relatively low diversity (e.g. line 81, 87-88).
Line 404-405 – it would be good to see further context here of whether the increase in abundance and diversity associated with the carbonate crusts is similar to that associated with other types of random, relatively small occurrences of hard substrates at high latitudes (e.g. dropstones).
Line 412 – Replace “till” with “to”
Line 416 – Replace “that” with “which”
Line 412-427 – In your argument that seeps may provide an alternative food source in regions with highly seasonal primary production it is not clear how the non-seep fauna observed would be able to adapt to the toxic nature of seeps in utilising these areas as a food source. This needs to be addressed.
Line 463 – Replace “compared to” with “than”

References cited:
Post, A. L., et al. (2017). "Environmental drivers of benthic communities and habitat heterogeneity on an East Antarctic shelf." Antarctic Science 29: 17-32.
Schulz, M., et al. (2010). "Colonisation of hard substrata along a channel system in the deep Greenland Sea." Polar Biology 33(10): 1359-1369.
Ziegler, A. F., et al. (2017). "Glacial dropstones: islands enhancing seafloor species richness of benthic megafauna in West Antarctic Peninsula fjords." Marine Ecology Progress Series 583: 1-14.


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: IMAGE BASED QUANTITATIVE COMPARISONS INDICATE HEIGHTENED MEGABENTHOS DIVERSITY AND ABUNDANCE AT A SITE OF WEAK HYDROCARBON SEEPAGE IN THE SOUTHWESTERN BARENTS SEA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript describes the relationship between the relatively shallow seep ecosystems of the Barents Sea and the surrounding deep sea. It joins a growing list of evidence for the significance of chemosynthetic productivity to the world's oceans. The fundamental conclusions of the manuscript are sound. It is a very well written manuscript, and it is refreshing to see something so polished at the initial manuscript submission stage.

Besides my minor comments listed below, my only major suggestion would be to expand the introduction and the end of the discussion to include more of the known links between chemosynthesis and the deep sea. There is a growing body of literature on the ecosystem services of chemosynthetic ecosystems and the significance of seeps to the surrounding deep ocean. A broader discussion of these links would be approrpiate here and would make this paper more broadly applicable and widely cited.
Experimental design: The experimental design is sound and the conclusions reached are well supported by the data. The only area that I would comment on here would be to go back to the ROV video and any other samples that are available to augment the data presented here. Larger scale photo transects could help resolve the difference between seep vs non-seep locations and the abundance of mobile fauna. Is there anything else in the background that causes these fauna to aggregate?

Video would also help in an attempt to get a better identification for some of the organisms and features observed in the photos. It is hard to believe that the only samples taken were the few push cores presented here. Even if they were not sampled, close-up video of some of the "white objects" should help to identify them. Thyasirids are discussed - is it possible that these are the white objects? Any other educated guesses? Likewise with the "fossil" tubes. It is possible that these are serpulids (either fossils or possibly even living worms), which can often be found near seeps.
Validity of the findings: No additional comments here.
Additional comments: In addition to the general comments above, a few other minor comments:

L309: Freytag et al. is not an appropriate citation here. Frenulates and vestimentiferans are very different organisms.

L446: While there may be some link between seeps and corals, these older Hovland papers have some fundamental issues. I would look to more recent studies.


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: A CENTURY OF WAITING: DESCRIPTION OF A NEW EPICTIA GRAY, 1845 (SERPENTES: LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE) BASED ON SPECIMENS HOUSED FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS IN THE COLLECTION OF THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM VIENNA (NMW)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written and easy to follow. Main data are reported in a rather clear way and supported with figures of good quality. As far as I can see, all the most significant features are clearly depicted in the figures, thus allowing both a better comprehension of them and the possibility for the reader to easily verify them by looking at the original specimens.
Experimental design: I have no significant issues to highlight regarding how the whole study was set up. Indeed, the authors follow a standard taxonomical approach and provide all the most important information about how they conducted their study. Particularly remarkable is the large amount of specimens of other species (in particular Epictia species) that are used as comparative material: this is very important in works in which new species are described, given that using a little comparative sample might lead to an underestimation of the variability of the already known taxa. All the comparative specimens used are listed as an appendix, which is also good.
Validity of the findings: Even though I have to admit I am not a specialist of South American snakes, the results reported by the authors seems really convincing to me and their conclusions appear based on sound data. Combining external morphological characters with osteological features is really appreciable. Skeletal anatomy of scolecophidian snakes is rather poorly known, particularly as far as the skull is concerned. New osteological data for these reptiles are therefore really welcome, also because they will allow future researchers to compare extant taxa with fossils attributed to scolecophidians (a thing that would not be possible otherwise).
One thing I would like to ask the authors to add in their manuscript, if possible, is some brief comments on the general morphology of the trunk vertebrae when discussing the variation. Trunk vertebrae make up most of the known fossil record of scolecophidian snakes, but they are generally considered to be almost non-significant from a taxonomical point of view below Scolecophidia as a whole. I definitely understand that a description of the vertebral morphology is completely out of the scope of this paper and it would be too much, of course. However, could it be possible, based on the raw data already available, to state whether vertebrae of these snakes (even considering the Epictia genus alone, but also compared with other genera in case) do show some kind of difference that might have a taxonomical significance (even if subtle and only in combination with other features)?
Additional comments: A list of other, minor comments follows:

Line 275: The plural of lamina should be laminae.

Line 279: “pierces” instead of “pierce”

Line 340: Here the “Pelvic girdle” heading should have the same rank as “Suspensorium”, “Cervical vertebrae”, ecc., I guess.

Lines 388-389: Is “first precloacal” correct? Or is this the first cloacal?

Lines 388-391: When reporting the position of the pelvic girdle, can you please clarify the distance in terms of number of vertebrae of the anteriormost trunk vertebra to which the girdle is related compared to the cloacal region, if possible? For example: “Pelvic girdle located at the level of the 230th (penultimate precloacal) and first cloacal vertebrae (Specimen X)”.

Line 395: A semicolon is missing after “(n=1)”.

Line 397: Is it the femur (as stated here) or the pubis (as stated previously in the description) that is fused to the ischium in the holotype?

Figure 13: In Fig. 13B, labels indicating the different parts composing the girdle would be useful for readers not familiar with snake postcranial osteology to better interpret 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: A CENTURY OF WAITING: DESCRIPTION OF A NEW EPICTIA GRAY, 1845 (SERPENTES: LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE) BASED ON SPECIMENS HOUSED FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS IN THE COLLECTION OF THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM VIENNA (NMW)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See below my "General comments"
Experimental design: See below my "General comments"
Validity of the findings: See below my "General comments"
Additional comments: This paper provides a detailed documentation for a new scolecophidian snake, a reptile group that is still insufficiently known in many aspects. I agree with the authors on the species level distinction of this taxon and the establishment, therefore, of a new species. The rather detailed descriptions will be rather helpful for future comparisons with other taxa. The quality of the photographs is high. Especially the documentation of the skeletal anatomy appears rather important.  The language, grammar, and the structure of the text are well presented.
I have to note however, that there is important “unbalance” between the description of cranial and postcranial elements. Of course the skull has the most important characters but vertebrae in snakes have so specialized anatomy and moreover, they are in fact the ONLY elements (so far) consisting their fossil record.
So, the main issue I would like to raise here is the insufficient description of the vertebral anatomy and the fact that the authors figure only the atlas and axis (and only in dorsal and lateral view; Fig. 10) and few vertebrae that appear in Fig. 13 (only in lateral view). Furthermore, their description is confined exclusively on the cervical area mentioning only the presence of hypapophyses, which is a rather basic information only. In a recent paper, Georgalis et al. (2017) addressed the currently poor knowledge of the vertebral anatomy of scolecophidians which as a result does not allow determination of fossil specimens of this group, not even for identifying them to the family level (typhlopids or leptotyphlopids). Considering that trunk vertebrae (especially mid-trunk ones) are the most common finds of scolecophidians in the fossil record, it is here a good opportunity to Figure and describe the vertebral anatomy of a trunk vertebra. What I mean precisely is that, as the authors have already these CT scans of the holotype, it is a gold opportunity to isolate one trunk vertebra (ideally one mid-trunk) and figure it in all standard five views (anterior, posterior, dorsal, ventral, lateral) with the proper orientation. For a proper orientation of a scolecophidian vertebra and also a description, please see Georgalis et al. (2017:fig. 5). In that way, important structures of the vertebra, such as the zygosphene, zygantrum, neural arch, cotyle, condyle, prezygapophyses, etc.. will be visible. In their current form, these Figures unfortunately provide no clue about these structures, which are nevertheless crucial for snake taxonomy (e.g., extent of prezygapophyses, concavity and thickness of the zygosphene, vaultness of the neural arch etc.). This will eventually provide important information and insight. Ideally, this could be done also for a caudal vertebra, but this is not so so necessary.
Georgalis, G.L., Villa, A., and Delfino, M., 2017a. Fossil lizards and snakes from Ano Metochi – a diverse squamate fauna from the latest Miocene of northern Greece. Historical Biology 29:730–742.

Few other comments on the text:
- In the Introduction it would be good to mention that their vertebral anatomy is so insufficiently known. This has implications for their not proper recognizing in the fossil record and the fact there are major difficulties in assigning fossil specimens to a particular family, leaving them almost always as Scolecophidia indet. (see Georgalis et al. 2017). Afterall you describe their skeletal anatomy of your new species, so it would be interesting to highlight this.
-Diagnosis part: Is there any distinctive feature in the vertebrae (apart from their total number already mentioned) that could be used in the Diagnosis? Of course the vertebral anatomy of scolecophidians is so insufficiently known, but in case the authors distinguish something, it would be interesting to add it in the diagnosis.
Line 69: The correct abbreviation for Natural History Museum in London is NHMUK
Line 169 and afterwards: Every taxon that appears for the first time in the text should not have its genus abbreviated. So all these Epictia species mentioned here, in their first mentions should have their full generic names writen and not just “E.”

Overall, this is an important contribution and will augment our knowledge on the diversity, external morphology and cranial anatomy of leptotyphlopids. Hopefully also on their vertebral anatomy
I am at your disposal for any further querry


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: A CENTURY OF WAITING: DESCRIPTION OF A NEW EPICTIA GRAY, 1845 (SERPENTES: LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE) BASED ON SPECIMENS HOUSED FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS IN THE COLLECTION OF THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM VIENNA (NMW)
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Comments on the original document.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Comments on the original document.
Additional comments: The article describe a new species of Epictia based on eight specimens from "Corinto, S. America", that was housed in the collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna for more than a century. Authors include large comparisons within congeneric Epictini, and proved relevant argumments on descriptions. They also proved important argumments to restrict type locality to Corinto, Nigaragua. Beside some minor revisions, I recommend this article for publishing in PeerJ.


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

Input:
Title: CORTISOL, PROGESTERONE, 17Α-HYDROXYPROGESTERONE, AND TSH RESPONSES IN DOGS INJECTED WITH LOW-DOSE LIPOPOLYSACCHARIDE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: -	Everywhere where you say “saline and LPS”, I would replace by “saline or LPS” for improved clarity
-	You can’t afford to say “various time points” within the material and method part: this is the only part where everything needs to be detailed: this is the part where the reader goes for clarification or precision in the study design
-	List the Siemens kits for each hormone other than 17OHP4
Experimental design: The study design is unclear, the following points need to be specified:
-	Emphasize more that there were 5 dogs total and they got both treatments in a row in the same order (rather than twice 5 different dogs, meaning 10 dogs total – I understood it only in the discussion once explaining the limits). This needs to be addressed in details within the material and method.
-	Why did the dogs get crystalloids before each treatment? And how long before each treatment? And when compared to the pre-injection blood drawing for hormones measurements?
-	If baseline corresponds with 24 hours before treatment injection, then clarify, as the notation “baseline, time -24 hours” seems unclear to me – one wonders if the two propositions separated by a coma are the same or different.
-	You also need to specify the assumed ovarian cycle status of the bitches within the material and method, the reader can’t discover this in the discussion. I would add something like: “bitches were selected to be for sure outside of the estrus phase of the ovarian cycle, and hopefully in anestrus.”
-	Please add one sentence to explain what a mixed model analysis is. Were the results analyzed by ANOVAs or not?
-	It is unclear to me which statistical method you used to come up with the results:
o	You need to specify what was analyzed for normality and equal variance assumption; just saying “analysis” is insufficient to allow the reader to picture what you did. Was it the set of 4 results for each dog for each time point for each hormone? If so, how reliable is a normality test performed on only 4 values, especially with a cutoff for the p value at 0.05?? Probably extremely low.
o	Which normality test did you use?
o	It is because you mentioned checking normality and equality of variances that I deducted that you used ANOVAs, but this is not mentioned anywhere actually; was it actually the case? If yes, then specifies that you used Tuckey to address the result of the ANOVAs. If not, then you really need to re-explain your statistical approach: if the reader can’t picture what you did, it’s difficult to trust the result.
o	(Did you use Tuckey or another test to address the results that did not verify normality and equality of variances?)
-	I would mention the delay of the freezing (2011 – 2017) in the Summary

Are you sure that the Immulite does indeed 10 measurements and provides the mean? I had never heard this and tend to doubt it; I thought it measured the value only once (whereas RIA does indeed 2 measurements and provides a mean with a CV). The Immulite uses an antibody-coated bead for each measurement, and I’m almost sure it needs one bead per measurement. I don’t think it uses 10 beads per value to perform 1 measurement: to be double-checked.
Validity of the findings: Cortisol results:
-	Are you sure the saline was not significantly increased at 3 hours versus baseline ?
TSH:
-	Are you sure there was no significant difference between 24 hours and baseline ?? The figure really shows the opposite…

To me, 2 findings need to be added and discussed:
1)	Limitations about the normality tests (and thus all the following stats) for tests about 4 values
(+the chosen normality test needs to be all mentioned, as all other statistical tests)
2)	It seems very important to me that:
a.	All steroid hormones increased clearly after LPS in the 5 dogs
b.	Whereas no steroid hormones increased in 2 out of 5 dogs, meaning almost half the dogs.

The second point was mentioned, but too late in the article in my opinion, and it probably needs more discussion, especially mentioning that then:
-	LPS triggers the steroids
-	Whereas it’s probably not the saline but the process that triggers the steroids in the saline part (otherwise the steroids would increase in the 5 dogs post saline all the same)
Additional comments: Very interesting work, English is good, references are good, and the topic is definitely relevant and useful. You just need to:
-	Develop the material and method
-	Include a more detailed stat paragraph (mandatory in my opinion)
-	And add a couple specifications mentioned above.


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

Input:
Title: CORTISOL, PROGESTERONE, 17Α-HYDROXYPROGESTERONE, AND TSH RESPONSES IN DOGS INJECTED WITH LOW-DOSE LIPOPOLYSACCHARIDE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Suggestions:
Line 29- Add space between '6-' and 'and'
Line 71- Consider adding reference Holowaychuk MK, Birkenheuer AJ, Li J, Marr H, Boll A, Nordone SK. J Vet Intern Med. 2012 Mar-Apr;26(2):244-51.
Line 77- Indicate which species have been studied that are being cited.
Line 77- References Dembek eat al, Fend et al, Folan et al are not found in the references section. Please check all references and insure that they are in the references section.
Line 87- Consider addressing the elevation in FT4 seen in cats with chronic illness.
Lines 150 and 167- expand 'significance' to significant difference
Line 198- Specify cortisol based physiologic stress response (in contrast to epinephrine/norepinephrine).
Line 244- change to (at all time points after saline and LPS injection) for consistency with line 246.
Experimental design: Research objectives are clearly defined, relevant and meaningful. The findings both fill knowledge gaps as well as identify new gaps needed to investigate further.
Authors adequately address the limitations of the study as well as any concern regarding the stability of the hormones.
Validity of the findings: The findings are clearly presented and not overstated.
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: CORTISOL, PROGESTERONE, 17Α-HYDROXYPROGESTERONE, AND TSH RESPONSES IN DOGS INJECTED WITH LOW-DOSE LIPOPOLYSACCHARIDE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Congratulation for this article as well as for all the modifications you did to address the reviewing. I wish to mention few last remarks:

1)	I would not use the term “the experiment unit ID” as it makes the sentence truly confusing; if you refer to dogs, then say dogs: the reader will understand much better.
2)	You provided a lot of statistical information to me that were really an excellent resource (see both bellow), and I do highly encourage you to include them into your paper (even if you modify slightly the style to fit the one for a published article), as they are of great value! I hope you will do so.
•	“This mixed model analysis can be called a split-plot ANOVA, it is an ANOVA analysis not the most commonly so-called ANOVA where only fixed effects are involved”
•	“Mixed model analysis was mentioned in the statistical analysis section and details regarding how the data were analyzed were summarized in this section. This analysis is not a common ANOVA, which only involves fixed effects. Therefore mixed model analysis instead of ANOVA is usually used to emphasize the experimental design. The data was analyzed by following the routine steps as follows: The raw data (not transformed) were analyzed using mixed model analysis as described in the statistical analysis section. The residuals generated were then used for conducting the diagnostic analysis for normality and equal variance assumptions. Because the model assumptions were violated (significant Shapiro-Wilk test and Levene's test), rank data transformation was conducted on the raw data. The mixed model analysis was then conducted again on rank-transformed data. Analysis of rank transformed data is a type of non-parametric analysis which assumes no normality and equal variance model assumptions and this is a common strategy to handle data with model assumption violation issues. Data was not rank transformed in the first place because the biggest drawback for all non-parametric analysis is lesser power of the analysis. Rank transformation is only applied when violation of model assumptions is verified.  Mixed model analysis only reports the significance of overall effect of each factor but not the difference among each levels of each factor. Therefore, in the statistical analysis section, post-hoc multiple comparisons analysis with Tukey's adjustment was described. The multiple comparisons are post-hoc testing after the mixed model analysis, and they were also conducted on ranked data and, therefore, no model assumptions needed to be verified.”
3)	I know where the confusion about the measurements of the Immulite comes from: you said “The Immulite analyzer routinely performs 120 replicate measurements”; the confusion comes from the term “replicate,” which is typically used in quality to signify a new entire test (i.e., 20 replicates for short term precision). Here, this is not a replicate, this is a series of 12 measurements (of the same replicate, if I can say so). I highly encourage to remove the term replicate to eliminate confusion from that paragraph.

Thanks, and again congratulation!
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: THE CLINICAL VALUE OF CARCINOEMBRYONIC ANTIGEN FOR TUMOR METASTASIS ASSESSMENT IN LUNG CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This study addresses the findings that patients with metastatic lung cancer have increased levels of carcinoembryonic antigen or CEA in the serum. On the basis of this finding, they propose CEA as a diagnostic marker for metastatic lung cancer. The background literature is well presented where the authors address the prevalence of lung cancer, detection limits, types of lung cancers, sites of metastasis and diagnostic methods together with their caveats, opening the foray for establishing the knowledge/clinical gap – need for economically viable convenient and non-invasive/non-harmful techniques to identify lung cancer progression and metastasis. The authors also explain why CEA is a diagnostic marker of choice for NSCLC with a range of detection.

The language is largely clear and umambiguous. Some examples of grammatical errors include:
1.	Line 129: “Serum CEA was significantly higher in the metastatic group”.
2.	Choice of words: rather than saying “risk of having metastasis” the authors can consider saying “developing metastasis”. Ditto for line 178.
3.	Line 181: “which closed to the…”. Do the authors mean “which was close to the…”?
4.	Unnecessary use of “the”. Example, Line 183: “Besides, in patients with tumor metastasis…” and Line 184 “in patients with multiple metastases compared with patients with single metastasis”.
5.	Line 189: what is a “vulnerable” indicator?

The article is mostly professionally presented with tables and figures. Few comments on the figures:
1.	P-values for all the box plots are missing from legends and/or the plots themselves.
2.	The boxplot lines need to be capped on top and bottom
Experimental design: The manuscript falls within the scope of the journal.
While the research question is well-defined in that the authors are endeavoring to establish the diagnostic robustness of CEA in lung cancers, there are some concerns as follows:

1. Lines 73 and 76: Both these studies show high levels of CEA are associated with worse survival of lung cancer or development of brain metastasis in patients with advanced lung cancer. What specific findings does this study contribute that sets them apart from these other studies? The authors claim that “in-depth study on the relationship between serum CEA and tumor metastasis in cancer is still insufficient”, however, it is unclear what this specific analysis is that distinguishes this study from previous analyses.
2. CEA as a cancer marker has been around for decades. What is the probability of false positives for CEA in serum? Can stress or injury or other non-cancerous situations also increase CEA in blood/serum?
3. Where did the metastasis occur? If the metastasis occurred in the brain, how was this detected? In other words, can there be patients in the non-metastatic cohort that had “undetected” metastasis? For example, if CEA is really elevated in patients with metastasis, then the high data scatter above the range of 5 (log CEA) in Figure 2 non-metastasis group might actually have undetected metastasis.
4. Line 131: “risk of having metastasis” – was this done with the patients who had already developed metastasis? If so, how is risk predictive in already metastatic patients?
5. I am surprised that tumor size has no predictive correlation with CEA levels, given that metastasis occurs when tumors proliferate and outgrow their current niche and need to find secondary niches in which to establish themselves. Since CEA is a predictive marker for metastasis, it is interesting that tumor size has no bearing on this.

My major concerns are to do with the (A) premise of the study and (B) robustness of the data

(A) The point of a diagnostic marker is that cancer/metastasis is detected early and thereby prevented. However, according to the authors, at first diagnosis, up to 70% of the patients are already in advanced stages of cancer”. So, how do the authors plan to reduce this percentage if the patients do not present with any symptoms until it’s too late? Only when patients present symptoms, will they be analyzed for CEA levels, was that to become a tractable diagnostic tool. It would be useful for the authors to specify what diagnostic benefit are the authors proposing here? Are the authors suggesting the use of CEA detection in addition to surgery and imaging techniques? Or that CEA could replace imaging? The study seems like a redundant attempt, since the authors do not show whether CEA detection is better than existing methods such as CT-scanning, PET imaging etc.

(B)The authors state in lines 210-212 that CT screening has a lot of false positives. However, the data that they included in their analyses includes the determination of whether or not metastasis was detected based on CT scanning. How did the authors ensure that the false positives were eliminated?
Validity of the findings: Data seems statistically sound however the authors need to indicate the p-values in the plots. Conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research questions and encompass the 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: THE CLINICAL VALUE OF CARCINOEMBRYONIC ANTIGEN FOR TUMOR METASTASIS ASSESSMENT IN LUNG CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript consists of lots of grammatical errors which hinders the comprehension. The authors should address this.

The authors use professional article structure including the figures and tables.
Experimental design: In line 105 – 106: The authors state that tumor metastases were mainly diagnosed by imaging modalities (CT, and/or PET) or surgery within one month after hospitalization. How did the authors manage to get good resolution to identify single mets, especially in the organs such as brain. the authors should present data on CT/PET imaging.

In line 124: The authors demonstrate the patients’ demographic characteristics in Table 1. What is the relevance of these analysis in this study?

How did the authors divide the 213 tumors into 128 patients with metastasis and 85 patients without metastasis? The authors should demonstrate data in support of this.

In line 150: How did the authors divide the metastasis into distant metastasis (defined as Distant metastasis group) and 21 patients with regional tumor metastasis only?
Validity of the findings: In line 210: The authors state that CT screening is associated with a high percentage of false positive tests, which may lead to unnecessary treatments. However they use the same method to identify metastasis.
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: THE CLINICAL VALUE OF CARCINOEMBRYONIC ANTIGEN FOR TUMOR METASTASIS ASSESSMENT IN LUNG CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made satisfactory changes to the manuscript and I have no further comments and/or recommendations
Experimental design: The authors have made satisfactory changes to the manuscript and I have no further comments and/or recommendations
Validity of the findings: The authors have made satisfactory changes to the manuscript and I have no further comments and/or recommendations
Additional comments: The authors have made satisfactory changes to the manuscript and I have no further comments and/or recommendations


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: PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES MEASURED WITH AND WITHOUT DIZZINESS ASSOCIATED WITH NON-SPECIFIC CHRONIC NECK PAIN: IMPLICATIONS FOR PRIMARY CARE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thank you very much for allowing me to review this manuscript. This work is well designed, well written and offers novel information about a symptom such as dizziness that is very prevalent in patients with non-specific neck pain. I believe that clinicians dedicated to treating patients with neck pain may find the information provided in this study useful.
I believe that the work has great potential for publication in this journal, however, there are several unknowns that must be resolved before publication.
Below are some questions that should be addressed before this work is published:

1.	In the summary, add more specific data such as effect sizes, 95% confidence intervals or means of the most relevant results.
2.	The introduction is correct, but the hypothesis needs to be better argued.
3.	In the material and methods mention who made the selection of the sample based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
4. Why was no measure used to measure motion sickness disability? This should be recognized as a limitation of work as there is no specific variable related to dizziness.
5.	It is important that psychometric reliability data be entered for each of the questionnaires used in this study.
6.	The sample size calculation data that were used do not coincide with the final result of the sample number used, if it is an error correct it.
7.	However, the statistical analysis does not explain the procedure of the type of statistical analysis that was performed to calculate the size of the effect. Please include this in the statistical analysis.
8.	I believe that in this study a correlation analysis should be performed in order to make the most of the results. Perform the analysis and also discuss the results.
9.	In this study results are only obtained from self-registrations, I think this may be a limitation as it would be useful to see the behavior of physical variables in this type of patients and their influence on quality of life and dizziness. Add this to the limitations.
10.	The result on fear should be discussed in more depth, review that section.