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: LONG NON-CODING RNA LINC01234 REGULATES PROLIFERATION, MIGRATION AND INVASION VIA HIF-2Α PATHWAYS IN CLEAR CELL RENAL CELL CARCINOMA CELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English language in the manuscript by Jang et al. should be improved to ensure that an International audience can clearly understand the text. Nevertheless, the article conforms to professional standards of courtesy and expression.
Experimental design: The initial experimental approach is appropriate. It is essentially based on meta-analysis of bioinformatics data derived from an overall cohort of patients (> 600) with diagnosis of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC). The source for data analysis of ccRCC cases was the TCGA database referring to Data Release 14.0-December 18, 2018. In the second part of their study, however, authors focused on 1 out of 6 lncRNAs emerging as relevant for the patient outcome, specifically LINC01234 using in vitro experimental cell model, the Caki2 and A498 cell lines, without a clear rationale.
The source of both cell lines used are correctly identified in Methods sections
Validity of the findings: Authors found that LINC01234 knockdown compromised the HIF-2α pathways. LINC01234 silencing represses in turns HIF-2α, VEGFA, EGFR, c-Myc, Cyclin D1 and MET expression levels. Authors claim that LINC01234 is likely to regulate the progression of ccRCC by modulating the HIF-2α pathways, known to be highly associated with this particular type of cancer and propose it, at the same time, as a biomarker and potential therapeutic target.
Additional comments: The manuscritpt by Yang et al aimed to identify a subset of lncRNAs with a prognostic significance in terms of disease progression in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC). The study aligns in a very timely research topic that strongly indicate that lncRNAs, frequently deregulated in a variety of human cancer, including RCC, may serve as biomarkers for primary diagnostics.

Major concerns:

1.	Based on the Kaplan Meyer survival curves (Figure 4) it appears that among the six independent prognostic lncRNAs identified by multivariate cox regression, lncRNA AL357507.1 exhibited the highest significance in terms of survival time. It is not clear why authors focused instead on lncRNA LINC 01234 for the subsequent experiments. Which was the criteria adopted in determing the decision to follow and charaterize this particular lncRNAs rather that one exhibiting the highest significance in terms of multivariate cox regression analysis?

2.	On the same page, authors should explain why they have pursued the analysis and validated the expression and prognostic significance of LINC01234 in patients with ccRCC via GEPIA server without a comparative analysis with at least another among those six lncRNAS proved to be independent prognostic variable as well. It appears that LINC01234 was highly expressed at higher pathological stage of the disease, and this is a very interesting finding. A similar correlation should be investigated in at least another lncRNAs among those identified by bioinformatics.

3. The bibliography supporting the association between high expression of HIF2a and progression of ccRCC mentioned in the Introduction (lanes 64-66) is very robust but has been recently expanded and deepened. Therefore, it is important to broaden the discussion on this matter and update bibliography for a correct positioning of the study in the context of the current literature on this specific topic.


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: LONG NON-CODING RNA LINC01234 REGULATES PROLIFERATION, MIGRATION AND INVASION VIA HIF-2Α PATHWAYS IN CLEAR CELL RENAL CELL CARCINOMA CELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors do not cite and comment some recent papers regarding the same field of interest. Among them:

Zeng, J., Lu, W., Liang, L. et al. Prognosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) based on a six-lncRNA-based risk score: an investigation based on RNA-sequencing data. J Transl Med 17, 281 (2019).

Jianguo Shi, Datian Zhang, Zhenhai Zhong, and Wen Zhang. lncRNA ROR promotes the progression of renal cell carcinoma through the miR-206/VEGF axis. Mol Med Rep. 2019 Oct; 20(4): 3782–3792.

Jiarun Zhang, Xiaotong Zhang, Chiyuan Piao, Jianbin Bi, Zhe Zhang, Zhenhua Li, Chuize Kong. A Long Non-Coding RNA Signature to Improve Prognostic Prediction in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma. Biomed Pharmacother. 2019 Oct;118:109079.

Cox, A., Tolkach, Y., Kristiansen, G. et al. The lncRNA Fer1L4 is an adverse prognostic parameter in clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma. Clin Transl Oncol (2020).
Experimental design: The paper is basically divided in two sections. In the first one the authors identified differentially expressed long non coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in clear cell renal cell carcinoma samples using the existing lncRNA expression data and corresponding clinical data from TCGA, to identify novel prognostic markers. The approach is convincing but the data presented in Figures 1-2-3 are presented in a confusing manner and the analysis content is difficult to understand.
In the second section the authors downregulate the expression of LINC01234, identified as a possible marker of aggressiveness in this kind of cancer, observing reduced cell viability, clonegenic potential and migration/invasion potential in two renal cancinoma cell lines. Then they evaluate the effect of LINC01234 downregulation on the expression of different proteins involved in epithelial to mesenchimal transition and respone to hypoxia among the others. The figures are well organized and convincing, but the authors do not include details about the number of the replicates in the case of Western blot analysis (figure 8). In figure 6A-C the font size is too little.
Validity of the findings: Unfortunately, the conclusions are not supported but the results presented in the second part of the manuscript. Even the title reported a statement that is not demonstrated. The downregulation of LIN01234 decreases HIF-2alpha expression but there is not evidence that this reduced expression is responsible of decreased in vitro agressiveness. The effect of LINC01234 is merely descriptive and the authors do not explore the molecular mechanisms involved in the modulation of gene expression induced by LINC01234 downregulation. The authors do not even  speculate about this aspect in Discussion section: is LINC01234 a ceRNA for miRNAs? Recently a pre-print paper showed that miR-513a-5p is a target of LINC01234.
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: LONG NON-CODING RNA LINC01234 REGULATES PROLIFERATION, MIGRATION AND INVASION VIA HIF-2Α PATHWAYS IN CLEAR CELL RENAL CELL CARCINOMA CELLS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript in the revised form has been edited thus English language resulted clear and unambiguous  throughout the paper. The article now  has been improved with updated references. Overall article structures and figures sufficiently satisfy journal guideline. Raw data have been supplied
Experimental design: The present version of the manuscript is of interest for PeerJ and for PeerJ readers. The experimental design is properly described and conducted according to technical and ethical standard. Methods are sufficiently described to be replicated.
Validity of the findings: New experiments have been included in the revised version thus the resulting paper reported more solid Results, consistent with hypothesis and clearly reported. The reviewer's requests were satisfied
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: LONG NON-CODING RNA LINC01234 REGULATES PROLIFERATION, MIGRATION AND INVASION VIA HIF-2Α PATHWAYS IN CLEAR CELL RENAL CELL CARCINOMA CELLS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors included new papers in the bibliography, as suggested, to fullfill the requirements of all the reviewers.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: I am agree with the authors that they can not cite a preprint. My request was to speculate about the possible molecular mechanisms through which this long non-coding RNA may regulate gene expression, determining an increased agressiveness of renal cancer cell lines. Anyway, the authors added a sentence about the limitations of their study, proposing a further investigation in the future.
Additional comments: The authors improved several aspects of the manuscript, following the suggestions of all the reviewers.


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: BELOWGROUND FUNGAL COMMUNITY DIVERSITY, COMPOSITION AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONALITY ASSOCIATED WITH WINTER WHEAT IN CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have explored the impact of two different agricultural practices on the mushroom community in winter wheat. The idea of preserving biological diversity is well established in both the plant and animal kingdom in densely populated environments.

This manuscript describes the results of the taxonomic classification of ITS genes isolated from roots and the ecological functionality of the fungal communities in this crop. Overall, this manuscript provides some useful ideas, but I have several comments/suggestions.
Experimental design: # 1
Illumina is nowadays the most used technology. If you need to identify the microbial diversity in a sample for sure you will get much more information using NGS techniques, after extracting DNA and amplifying ITS genes using different primers that are suitable for fungi. It would be very clear to the reader why the Sanger sequencing method was chosen instead of NSG in this project.ents.
Validity of the findings: I find a lack of statistical evidence to support the results. I have some suggestions:

# 1
In the section “Differences in environmental factors between farming methods” (lines 255-260),  it is not mentioned the distance measure used for the distance-based ordination methods, in this case, NMDS. For example Euclidean, Bray or Jaccard distances among others.

#2
The most appropriate method to test the effect of exploratory variables on species abundance matrices is a CCA or RDA analysis followed by Variation Partitioning, in which we can see: What percentage of the total variance of the species distribution is capable of explaining each environmental factor and whether it is significant?
This type of analysis is much more complete and informative than the one shown in Figure 2.

In the following links, you can see how to perform this type of analysis in R.

Variable selection: https://www.davidzeleny.net/anadat-r/doku.php/en:forward_sel
Variation partitioning: https://www.davidzeleny.net/anadat-r/doku.php/en:varpart

#3
In order to statistically check if there are really differences between the different fungal communities according to the type of agricultural practice, I suggest performing a PERMANOVA test by means of distance-based dissimilarity matrices such as Jaccard (presence/absence of OTUs) or Bray-Curtis (abundance of OTUs).
Additional comments: # 1
Although the term mOTU is accepted and there are publications about it, I suggest changing it to OTU.

#2
In the results of the taxonomic classification, a total of 130 OTUs were classified at the phylum level. However, only 69% were classified at the order level (Figure 2). It would be interesting to know with your methodology what percentage of OTUs are classified up to the genus or species level and to see if these values improve using a much more extensive database. For instance, the RefSeq ITS (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/177353)  consists of 11, 250 entries, while the database "UNITE + INSD" (https://unite.ut.ee/repository.php) consists of 714, 329 for the ITS gene on fungi.


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: BELOWGROUND FUNGAL COMMUNITY DIVERSITY, COMPOSITION AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONALITY ASSOCIATED WITH WINTER WHEAT IN CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: NB: this review was prepared without explicit consideration of the different "review paragraphs" - therefore it only loosely follows this structure.

The manuscript entitled "Belowground fungal community diversity, composition and ecological functionality associated with winter wheat in conventional and organic agricultural systems" by Garnica et al. describe a phenomenon of general scientific interest, which is the diversity and community composition of fungi that associate with roots of crops under different agricultural management settings. This relevance is clearly set out in the introduction, and further elaborated on in the discussion, in a generally well-written manuscript.
Experimental design: After raising high expectations in the abstract, it turns out that the obtained results are quite limited in extent: L42 suggest results of roots from 500 plants will be presented, but in fact they are only 100 "pooled" samples. Moreover, from the results it is not quite clear exactly which of these actually contributed to the results (it is only apparent after checking Table S2, but should already be clear there). In line 272 it is said that "Out of the 100 pooled root samples, 54 pooled root samples yielded PCR products either directly or after cloning" – this makes me immediately wonder: how can you clone an amplicon without PCR product? This confusion remains, in the line immediately after the numbers don't add up (how do 15 direct sequences and 26 cloned sequences (sum=41) represent 43 samples? Same in the next sentence. These are the first lines of the results which is where readers are going to get confused and stop reading I'm afraid.
Validity of the findings: From this point onwards the fact that plants originated from 5 different fields is entirely ignored. This is never explicitly justified by the authors, but is presumably the case because so few samples gave rise to usable sequences. This is something that could be reflected on more extensively: why did so few samples produce PCR products? Was there some sort of inhibition problem? Nevertheless, just treating samples as coming from either organic or conventional agriculture causes replication to be essentially N=1. This makes it difficult to claim that particular functional groups were overrepresented in e.g. conventional agriculture, or that one was more phylogenetically clustered than the other. I am sympathetic to authors that they are trying to see light in limited data, and they are generally quite careful in phrasing conclusions, but I feel it should be remarked upon.
Additional comments: L48 (Abstract): here the claim is made that "fungal communities from conventional farming sites were significantly clustered" – without further context in the abstract this is difficult to interpret.
L86: Here it is suggested that Verbruggen et al. (2014) did not find differences in Sebacinales occurrence between land-use types, but in fact they claimed there were.

There are font-size changes in both M&M, Results, and Discussion sections.

L317: "In general, a higher number of different trophic modes (involving some symbiotroph
MOTUs) were found in organically managed sites than in conventional farming systems." – this is an ambiguous statement; do you mean they are more equally distributed according to different trophic modes?
L397: "Predicted of functional groups" – please rephrase
L410: "the intrinsic nature of environmental factors" – vague statement
L411: "it" seems likely

Figure 1: While there are 10 sites that have been sampled, only six are shown in Figure 1? The caption is very unclear and should be revised.
Figure 2: here there are some misspellings: "Magnaporthales", "Helotiales" – especially t's seem to be conspicuously missing?


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: BELOWGROUND FUNGAL COMMUNITY DIVERSITY, COMPOSITION AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONALITY ASSOCIATED WITH WINTER WHEAT IN CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: The section "Environmental factors of different farming systems" reads a lot better and the authors have addressed most of my comments.

The results obtained by RDA and PERMANOVA tests provide further statistical support to the manuscript.
Additional comments: Authors answers to all the question and meliorate the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: BELOWGROUND FUNGAL COMMUNITY DIVERSITY, COMPOSITION AND ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONALITY ASSOCIATED WITH WINTER WHEAT IN CONVENTIONAL AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL SYSTEMS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I hereby re-review the paper I commented on earlier. I believe the authors have taken all objections raised by me and the other referee seriously and have incorporated suggestions adequately. I have no further objections and congratulate the authors on their nice work.


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

Input:
Title: DATA SHARING POLICIES OF JOURNALS IN LIFE, HEALTH, AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES INDEXED IN JOURNAL CITATION REPORTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well-written, clear, and well-organized.
Tables are all clear and useful.
Background literature is reviewed and discussed; key sources are cited.
Experimental design: Hypotheses are stated and tested.
Methods, including statistical methods, are well-described and appropriate.
Data are relevant to the hypotheses.
Data are shared.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are well-stated and supported by the data.
The interpretations are sound.
The results are interesting, important, and make valuable contribution to the literature.
Additional comments: I enjoyed reading this article and look forward to its publication.
Excellent work!
One minor point: how often did the researchers who categorized the data disagree?  Was inter-rater agreement assessed statistically?


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: DATA SHARING POLICIES OF JOURNALS IN LIFE, HEALTH, AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES INDEXED IN JOURNAL CITATION REPORTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The writing is clear and easy to read. The references to the literature are sufficient and well-referenced.
Experimental design: The experimental questions are clear and well defined, and design is well done. The culture around data sharing and open science is evolving, so it is relevant to re-analyze data journal sharing policies and update the analyses of studies that have previously been done.
Validity of the findings: The results are robust and well-reported. It is great that the authors shared their raw data with the submission, which promotes transparency and reproducibility of the study. I recommend the authors share their data in an open, citeable repository, and cite the code/data per FORCE11 Data Citation Principles, Software Citation Principles (https://www.force11.org/software-citation-principles). The data could be shared in GitHub and published in Zenodo.

Regarding the shared dataset, there needs to be a data dictionary or accompanying ReadMe file, to ensure the data is interpretable and reusable to downstream users.
Additional comments: Sometimes data sharing policies may be more nuanced and just searching on the keywords may cause some of the policies to be missed. This should be noted in the discussion.

Line 221 - Life science journal should be plural

The discussion could be expanded to include more discussion of the culture of open science, and some of the motivations for sharing data.


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

Input:
Title: DATA SHARING POLICIES OF JOURNALS IN LIFE, HEALTH, AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES INDEXED IN JOURNAL CITATION REPORTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Generally the papers is well written and referenced. The tables and figures are understandable and appropriate.

I find the discussion of the journal subject areas starting on line 169 confusing. I had to read this several times and I’m still not fully sure I understand how everything was divided up. I think a table or figure might more clearly explain how many journals are in each category and where there is overlap. Table 2 partly does this, but it doesn’t totally make clear what exactly is in the “general” category. I also get the sense there’s some overlap between some of the different journal categories and I can’t figure out whether journals that had more than one category (e.g. were those that were both life science and health science just counted once as general, or counted once for life science and once for health science?).
Experimental design: 1.	I have some questions about collapsing the various policies levels into just three categories (none, weak, or strong). I appreciate the reference to Piwowar and Chapman, but they’re measuring something slightly different, which is just whether the policy would be enforceable or not. That paper is over ten years old and I see the data sharing landscape to be quite different since that time, so I think an update to that analysis would be helpful. I could potentially see grouping policies with a 3 or 4 as being strong, but those that are a 2 (just requires a data availability statement) to me would be at best a moderate policy, since there are several studies that have demonstrated that just having a data availability statement often does not mean data are ever actually shared (Federer 2018, McDonald 2017, Naudet 2018 and Rowhani-Farid 2016). So I would suggest that policies that only require data availability statements would have a only moderate impact on data sharing and I think doing the analysis based on categories (none, weak, moderate, and strong) could provide more meaningful results.
2.	In discussion of the pair coding process, I would like to see more detail about the extent to which their were disparities among coders. Ideally I would like to see a quantitative measure of interrater reliability like the kappa statistic (see for example McHugh 2012). I would also like to hear more about the consensus-building process for disparities. If there were discrepancies, how did the group decide which code to pick? This is coding process is a really important point because the entire analysis relies on the strength of policy category and it bears more discussion here. I think there’s even a little ambiguity with the words that the authors describe indicating obligation – “must” and “require” are pretty clear but I think it’s debatable whether “should” would be expecting or encouraging data sharing. I would imagine there are other types of language that could be similarly ambiguous.
3.	If journals with more than one category are counted once for each category, there needs to be some discussion about how that was handled in the statistical analysis.

(i have included full citations to the articles referenced here in the general comments below)
Validity of the findings: All of the findings are appropriately supported and I appreciate the inclusion of the underlying data.
Additional comments: This paper adds to the existing literature in the area by providing more current results (especially important in light of rapidly evolving practices in this area). The analyses were well designed and implemented, though I think some additional description of the methods could be helpful as described above. My main question is just whether the definition of strength of data sharing policy used here answers a meaningful research question. Is the question simply whether the journal has an enforceable policy that has something to do with data? That is answered here, but to me the more interesting question would be whether the journal has an enforceable policy specific to data sharing, since, as discussed above, having a data availability statement often does not mean data are indeed shared. A more interesting question to me is, as the authors state on line 84, “how stringent their policies are regarding data sharing.” I’m really curious to know more about the distinction between journals that just require a data availability statement (which in plenty of cases turns out to be something to the effect of “we can’t/won’t share this data”) versus journals that make a strong stand in saying “you must share your data if you want us to publish your work.” While this paper is interesting as written, I think this additional analysis would provide far more depth.
Articles referenced in the review
Federer, L., Belter, C. W., Joubert, D. J., Livinski, A., Lu, Y.-L., Snyders, L. N., & Thompson, H. (2018). Data sharing in PLOS ONE: An analysis of Data Availability Statements. PLoS One, 13(5), e0194768. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194768
McDonald, L., Schultze, A., Simpson, A., Graham, S., Wasiak, R., & Ramagopalan, S. V. (2017). A review of data sharing statements in observational studies published in the BMJ: A cross-sectional study. F1000Research, 6(0), 1708. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12673.1
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23092060
Naudet, F., Sakarovitch, C., Janiaud, P., Cristea, I., Fanelli, D., Moher, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in The BMJ and PLOS Medicine. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 360, k400. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.K400
Rowhani-Farid, A., & Barnett, A. G. (2016). Has open data arrived at the British Medical Journal (BMJ)? An observational study. BMJ Open, 6(10), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011784


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: DATA SHARING POLICIES OF JOURNALS IN LIFE, HEALTH, AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES INDEXED IN JOURNAL CITATION REPORTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall this article is written fairly well though there are areas where the language could be improved for comprehension. Please see annotations to manuscript for suggestions in this regard. There are also several areas of background/context that could be expanded upon in order to strengthen the manuscript.

Specific suggestions:
• Tighten up abstract to better reflect the manuscript – see edits to manuscript for some suggestions
• Lines 37-42 Please cite additional evidence as to how data sharing impacts the value of research data.
• Lines 73-82 Can examples of data sharing requirements outside of Europe and the United States be added? I appreciate that Europe’s are the most robust, but I believe it is worth calling attention to the status of data sharing in other areas of the world.
• I would encourage listing all continents out when reporting on journal publisher location rather than lumping some under “Other”. If authors prefer use of “Other”, then please indicate in Tables, which continents are included in that category. If there are no journal publishers represented the sample from certain continents (e.g., Africa, South America) then I’d encourage a sentence added to indicate that in the manuscript (potentially following Line 149).
• Throughout the manuscript and tables, authors need to be consistent in use of plural or singular forms (e.g., “science” or “sciences”) and spelling of words (i.e., multidisciplinary vs. multidiscipline)
Experimental design: The design of this study is consistent with others performed in this area though additional discussion on the method used for categorizing policies, and the review of the policies themselves, would be beneficial.

Specific suggestions:
• Can the authors provide more explanation as to why this broad categorization method (i.e., no, weak, strong) was chosen, especially when more recent studies categorizing data sharing policies have adopted a more nuanced approach (e.g., Stodden et al. 2013; Vasilevsky et al. 2017; Resnik et al. 2019) to tease out the varied degrees of “strength” in journal data sharing policies?
• I find the “multidisciplinary” subject area to be unclear both in definition and reporting. Furthermore, it is not indicated as a (subject) area of interest in the Introduction (or Title for that matter). Other studies have chosen to exclude this category of journal in order to better compare across subject areas/disciplines (Resnik et al. 2019). Is this something the authors considered? If this subject area of journals remains included, I suggest better definition and indication of which journals are assigned to this category.
• Were attempts made to assess the inter-rater reliability between the pairs when reviewing data sharing policies? In studies like these, a challenge is the subjectivity of data sharing policy language. It would strengthen the methods section for the authors to address in more detail how they accounted for and resolved that subjectivity.
• Why were 9 journals excluded from the review/analysis (i.e., 709 journals identified, but only 700 analyzed)?
Validity of the findings: The findings of this research generally align with the research question and the experiment design. However, changes to the manner in which the manuscript reports the findings would help more effectively communicate the results.

Specific suggestions:
• The reporting of “no policy” vs “weak policy”; “weak policy” vs “strong policy” is challenging to follow at times. Authors should review and consider rephrasing these parts of the manuscript to streamline for clarity.
• More context is needed for the findings reported on policy strength for certain disciplines (i.e., Table 5). While this provides an added layer of insight, reporting of this needs to be better integrated into the manuscript and the language used to describe it needs to be consistent (i.e., decide between use of disciplines vs sub-category vs subject).
• There are (seemingly) anecdotal observations included in the reporting of findings (for example, lines 270-278; 299-301). Added context as to how these findings were determined/collected would strengthen reporting.
• The authors do a nice job contextualizing their findings in the body of existing literature.
• The raw data shared is very helpful, but could benefit from additional descriptive information (e.g., readme, data dictionary) to assist future researchers/readers. I’d also encourage the authors to consider sharing the files associated with their analyses conducted using Stata in order to ensure full reproducibility of the study. Finally, I recommend authors deposit all raw data and analyses files in an appropriate repository (examples here: https://peerj.com/about/author-instructions/#data-and-materials).
Additional comments: This is an interesting study that contributes to knowledge around journal data sharing policies in the areas of life, physical, and health sciences. There are times where the manuscript’s language is a bit challenging to follow – especially in the reporting of results – however, this study provides added insight on factors that may influence the presence and strength of journal data sharing policies. In addition to the comments made, I strongly recommend that the authors flush out the Conclusion to include elements such as: what are next steps? Are there areas of this research that could benefit from further study? How might the limitations acknowledged by the authors in this study be addressed moving forward?


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: DATA SHARING POLICIES OF JOURNALS IN LIFE, HEALTH, AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES INDEXED IN JOURNAL CITATION REPORTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The reporting is clear and the edits/additions the authors have made have improved the clarity and thoroughness of this reporting.
Experimental design: I appreciate the added statistical testing the authors conducted.
Validity of the findings: The authors provide a useful conclusion that also points to some new areas for future research.
Additional comments: A very minor point of clarification: lines 95-96 say that NIH requires a data management and sharing plan. That is not the case at the moment – is has not yet been determined when that policy will go into effect.


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: DATA SHARING POLICIES OF JOURNALS IN LIFE, HEALTH, AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES INDEXED IN JOURNAL CITATION REPORTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have done an excellent job incorporating the feedback from reviewers, which has greatly improved the clarity and communication of the impact of this research. After reading through the revised manuscript, I have just one point where additional clarification is needed:

Lines 94-96 – the National Institutes of Health (NIH) currently does not require data management and sharing plans broadly. The citation referenced in the manuscript is to a draft of a potential policy that the NIH may adopt. My suggestion is to reword that sentence to read something like, “For example, the National Institutes of Health indicates they may expand upon existing data sharing requirements and require data management and sharing plans more broadly moving forward (National Institutes of Health, 2019).”

Here is a link to the existing NIH data sharing requirements for context: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/sharing.htm
Experimental design: Authors addressed all comments made on the original manuscript, which has resulted in better description of the research design and process. I have no further comments.
Validity of the findings: Again, the authors sufficiently clarified the findings of this research by providing additional explanation or adding citations. Thank you as well to the authors for uploading their raw data and Stata code to Figshare. A suggestion I would make is to consider adding documentation to these files to help contextualize the process of analysis and better assist potential future users of the data.
Additional comments: The authors have revised this manuscript and it now more strongly communicates the outcomes of their research. A final comment I will make is in regards to the Conclusion. While the authors did an excellent job of summarizing limitations and future research, I still feel the paper ends rather abruptly. I would encourage adding some additional lines that perhaps situate this manuscript in the context of existing literature, reiterate how it contributes to that literature, and how it provides a stepping stone for further research in this area moving forward.


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: DATA SHARING POLICIES OF JOURNALS IN LIFE, HEALTH, AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES INDEXED IN JOURNAL CITATION REPORTS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have incorporated all suggested changes satisfactorily. Quick copyediting note - in the reference list, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) citation needs an "s" added to "Institute".
Experimental design: The authors have incorporated all suggested changes, which has resulted in increased clarity in their results reporting.
Validity of the findings: No further suggestions. Thank you to the authors for strengthening the documentation and description for the code shared in Figshare.
Additional comments: I have no further suggestions or comments on the manuscript at this time.


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: UTILISING ONE MINUTE AND FOUR MINUTE RECOVERY WHEN EMPLOYING THE RESISTANCE TRAINING CONTRAST METHOD DOES NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT SUBSEQUENT JUMP PERFORMANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF CONCURRENT TRAINING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: The technique of performing a drop jump can have a significant impact on the results of your work. Looking at the results, it can be assumed that it was bounce drop jump and not countermovement drop jump. See Struzik et al. 2016 for more details. The description of the jump should be more detailed. Alternatively, add to the limitations the fact that there was no detailed control of the jump technique.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The article seems very interesting for the potential reader. Conclusions regarding a recovery time between exercises can be used in sports training.


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: UTILISING ONE MINUTE AND FOUR MINUTE RECOVERY WHEN EMPLOYING THE RESISTANCE TRAINING CONTRAST METHOD DOES NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT SUBSEQUENT JUMP PERFORMANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF CONCURRENT TRAINING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Very well designed and written study. Literature is sufficient. Article structure is good, although I suggested minor improvements
Experimental design: Research question is well designed and supported. Authors studied appropriate sample of subjects and used appropriate methods.
Validity of the findings: Findings are valid and realistic, especially taking into account proper statistical methods and good interpretation.
Additional comments: Well done study. However, text is very dense and difficult to read. Also, PeerJ is e-journal and therefore there is no need for usage of "uncommon" abbreviations (i.e. ONEW, FOUR); use full words throughout the text (1-min-rest; 4-min-rest, etc.).
My main comment (major one) is related to presentation of the study. I'm not novice in science and still had to read experiment couple of time before understanding what authors did in their study. I strongly suggest (actually, I insist) on providing the Figure where experiment will be presented with differences between protocols, timing, etc.
Also, studies of such kind ask for a profound explanation of study limitations.
I would rather see last paragraph of the Discussion in the Conclusion section.


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

Input:
Title: UTILISING ONE MINUTE AND FOUR MINUTE RECOVERY WHEN EMPLOYING THE RESISTANCE TRAINING CONTRAST METHOD DOES NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT SUBSEQUENT JUMP PERFORMANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF CONCURRENT TRAINING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: •	Suggest the title may be re-considered to be more brief whilst still highlighting the purpose of the study
“The effects of short and long recovery periods during contrast resistance training in elite Australian Football”
•	The use of the terminology “Post Activation Potentiation” should be reconsidered throughout the text. Contrast training (and recovery periods) can, and should be, be related to PAP in the introduction and discussion sections. However, this study is simply comparing 1min v 4min recovery periods contrast training. PAP does not need to form a key part of this manuscript.
•	In addition to the above point, upon revising the use of the term, the authors should be clear in differentiating between “post activation potentiation” and “post activation performance enhancement (PAPE)” and address throughout. See: Blazevich et al. 2019 Post-activation Potentiation Versus Post-activation Performance Enhancement in Humans: Historical Perspective, Underlying Mechanisms, and Current Issues
•	Abstract - see above regarding use of PAP - it doesn’t appear to be necessary in the abstract.
•	Abstract - Methods - Last sentence can be changed to “Baseline (pre) drop jumps were compared to post-test drop jumps after each set of squats, to determine changes between 1min and 4min recovery periods”. Then include the statistical tests used.
•	Abstract - Discussion - As mentioned, the PAP terminology is not appropriate here and needs re-wording. Findings are simply that “Contrast resistance training utilising 1min recovery durations were not detrimental to subsequent performance compared with 4min recovery”. These findings do not necessarily mean it is an ecologically valid method of periodization. We can’t assume from this data what might happen after longer recovery periods, or the long term adaptations. A more appropriate summary might be that short recovery periods of 1min may be time-efficient form of prescribing strength-power exercise. Longer recovery period do not appear to benefit immediate, subsequent performance and therefore may not be a time efficient method of training. This should be considered for the discussion section as well.
•	Running head - As above, this is not an appropriate running head and doesn’t reflect the study. Please amend to something more reflective of the manuscript.

Line 55-56 - Wording makes it sounds like there are only two methods. Reword to “…two commonly used models to periodise resistance exercise within-session are the ‘traditional’ and ‘contrast’ training methods. The traditional training approach…”
Line 59 - Be more specific than “a few” even it is a repetition range supported by the relevant reference
Line 63-74 - It’s unclear why it is important to “utilise PAP” in this setting. I.e. why is it a benefit for an AFL player to utilise PAP? Can a link be made to the importance of improving jump height during the session? Or is it an effective method of developing long term strength-power qualities? This remains unclear to me throughout and needs to be substantiated if it is the path you want to take in this paper. An alternative path is to simply compare the two recovery durations, and then draw upon past PAP/PAPE literature to explain or discuss your findings.
Lines 86-90 - I think this makes a lot of sense and as above could be a better direction to take this paper. I.e. Recovery periods of 8-12 minutes have been suggested to maximise PAPE response, however are not appropriate in the applied environment. As such, the aim of this study was to compare the short term response following two smaller recovery periods of 1 and 4 minutes.
Intro - Why is RSI used? This probably warrants at least half a paragraph as the primary measure of performance.
Experimental design: Line 92 - I think it is important to state here that it is after other training methods rather than simply in the presence.
Line 106 - Was this a crossover study? I.e. All participants completed both 1min and 4min protocols? It seems so but a little unclear. If not, re-word this sentence to “… participants completed either 1min or 4min contrast training sessions”.
Line 106 - Would also be good to include a sentence or two on if and how training was standardised prior to this day of training and testing. E.g .48 hours of rest, when the last training session was completed.
Line 110 - Combine the next sentence here by including “1 hour later” after “RT session”.
Line 111 - How many baseline jumps?
Line 112 - How many repetitions?
Line 114 - Consider just using “1min” and “4min” here and throughout the text? Reads a little easier and doesn’t need to be simplified further.
Line 124 - The clubs committee, or the university?
Line 150 - Include how many jumps were used for baseline. Also include ICC and CV of the drop jump test in these athletes, to provide more context for results presented.
Line 168 - “Due to” instead of “Because of”
Line 168 - How many missing values were there?
Validity of the findings: Line 170 - I strongly encourage the authors to re-consider the use of “significance” thresholds and the terminology of “non-significant” and “significant” changes. Most statisticians now recommend simply reporting p values observed and effect sizes without categorizing at significant or non-significant. See following:
•	Earnest et al. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/6/4/139
•	Hurbert et al. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00031305.2018.1543616?fbclid=IwAR3WUKY_wcy_Uzx1uesINfmjOckY2T16ASpy9zH1XAQdI8_qlIJ1JgG5_iE
•	Curran-Evertt et al. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00054.2020?fbclid=IwAR17kNXspfXAtd_j9Z8Pm89-yi2p5iHxgnWGawf9uh8Lm2ak3iN3uZPULm0

Results section - It may be more insightful to include (at least in visualising in all figures) individual percentage changes of variables compared to baseline rather than presenting group means. This will help provide more context to the changes, or lack of changes reported.
Lines 178 - 185 - I like the inclusion of this data, certainly important to consider.
Figure 2 and 3 - Would it benefit the reader to overlay the results displayed in Figure 2 and 3? It may help to highlights the differences between the two protocols.
Additional comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The study aimed to compare the use of a short recovery period (1min) and a longer recovery period (4min) when prescribing contrast strength-power training to elite Australian Football athletes.
The authors should be commended on writing this paper - studies are always difficult to complete in elite applied environments. I believe this study can contribute to the strength & conditioning knowledge, however, some general and specific changes (outlined below) need to be addressed before a decision can be made on this manuscript. Firstly and most importantly, the aims and reasoning behind the aims of the study, need to be clearly stated. The WHY of this study isn’t obvious as a reviewer. It is currently unclear why acute changes in RSI during training are important for athlete development / performance. It is much clearer why reducing rest periods would be beneficial for practitioners, particularly if there is no benefit of longer rest periods. This may be the direction you want to take with this study. I have outlined in further detail below.
Additionally, particularly given the small sample size, further work needs to be done to provide clarity over the reliability of the RSI testing measures (CV and ICC). Further, results should be presented as a percentage change in each individual.
Due to the required changes above and the specific changes below, I have not reviewed the discussion section. Upon resubmission, I would be happy to review the paper again.


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: UTILISING ONE MINUTE AND FOUR MINUTE RECOVERY WHEN EMPLOYING THE RESISTANCE TRAINING CONTRAST METHOD DOES NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT SUBSEQUENT JUMP PERFORMANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF CONCURRENT TRAINING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: - The structure of the article conforms to the PeerJ standards and the raw data is well presented as part of this review.
- Clear and unambiguous English is used throughout. There are however quite a few instances where the author uses pronouns like "we" and "our" in the text which may detract from the professional scientific nature of the document.
- The structure of the document is sound with all the relevant information submitted for a thorough review.
- The document is self-contained with relevant results to the hypothesis.
Experimental design: - The authors have conducted a good, novel, research study which sought to validate current intra-session programming and periodisation.
- The research question is well defined, relevant, and meaningful to practitioners in the field.
- The study looks to have been conducted rigorously to a high technical and ethical standard.
- The methods require some clarification, as per the notes related to the methods section in the basic reporting section.
Validity of the findings: - The findings from the current study seem to be sound and serve to inform best practice for the strength and conditioning industry.
- The conclusion effectively summarises the key findings from the current study.
Additional comments: This article investigates a topical issue in strength and conditioning and seeks to bridge the gap between the current scientific understanding and the “real-world” application thereof. The outcomes from this study may be well received by practitioners, especially those working with high-intensity invasion sports athletes who participate in concurrent training.
- The article needs to be further proofread and written from a more scientific perspective. Throughout the document, the author uses personal pronouns like we (lines 102, 234, 291, 292, 298 and 326) and our (line 270) which may distract from the scientific nature of the document. An additional, very minor issue, is the amount of “filler information” within the document e.g. Line 76: “ To optimise the PAP response, a meta-analysis has indicated that 8 to 12 minutes of recovery after the conditioning contraction is required to induce the greatest PAP response (10).” This sentence may read better with the removal of the lead-in statement: “A meta-analysis has indicated that 8 to 12 minutes of recovery after the conditioning contraction is required to induce the greatest PAP response (10).”
- Ensure that a consistent term is used when referring to participants/athletes/subjects. In the current documents, the author refers to both participants and athletes. The same goes for “Australian Football” and “Australian Rules Football” which may be confusing for international readers.

Abstract:
- Add in information related to the rep schemes and potentially how this influenced load selection in the respective sets.
- Clarify that each set was followed by 3 maximal jumps. e.g. “Baseline drop jumps were collected, followed by 3 sets of 3 reps, during which athletes were encouraged to lift as heavy as possible. Following each set of squats, the athletes completed either the ONE or FOUR intervention followed by 3 maximal drop jumps.”

Introduction:
- There are a couple of relevant points introduced in the discussion section for the first time which should be added and covered in the introduction e.g. Lines 274-278. Defining/outlining the fitness and fatigue relationship, specific to PAP, in more depth in the introduction serves to provide better rationalisation of the importance of the research question. When the fatiguing effect of the squat priming stimulus is looked at in conjunction with the fatigue induced during the field-based session, the research question is better contextualised.
- Introducing information related to PAP interventions performed at lower percentages of 1RM e.g. plyometrics and Fukutani et al. (40), in conjunction with the “traditional” >80% 1RM protocol (Line 69), may serve to better lay the foundation for the outcomes of this study, where the average priming load was around 74% 1RM.
- It is advised that the author clearly state the rationale or performance/training benefits of using PAP interventions to potentiate plyometric or explosive exercises/activities. Why is this desirable in the training environment e.g. neurological benefits?
- Information in Lines 78-79 seems to be repeated in lines 86-88. Look to state this only once.
- References may be required for “strength levels” and “fatigue resistant”, Line 95, especially when looking at the relevance to PAP and the dissipation of fatigue. Tying these concepts together serves to back the hypothesis of the article.

Methods:
- It may be prudent to state the training age of the athletes. This may inform the training history and experience related to physiological, especially neurological training level and efficacy?
- Ensure all terms are written out in full prior to the use of the abbreviation e.g. Meter and m.
- Ensure that you provide a statement around session ONE and FOUR being load matched as per Lines 316/7, in the methods section. This will serve to strengthen the relevance of the outcomes of this study.
- Add in information related to the rep schemes and potentially how this influenced load selection in the respective sets.
- Include the information from Lines 250-253 into the methods section to justify the use of squat jump over the countermovement jump for plyometric assessment.

Results:
- As an aside… It would be interesting to see the individual responses to the different protocols. Are there grounds for individualised prescription of PAP rest prescription for athletes in the future?

Discussion:
- Ensure that all the points raised within the introduction and discussion sections are complementary, with the discussion building on key statements from the introduction. There are a couple of new concepts introduced in this discussion which need to be alluded to in the introduction e.g. the fitness: fatigue interaction related to PAP interventions.
- To strengthen this study, it may be prudent to state the resistance training age/experience level of the athletes. Especially when related to the neurological aspects mentioned in 306 - 307.
- Clarify when this study took place. Was it the pre-season or in-season?


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: UTILISING ONE MINUTE AND FOUR MINUTE RECOVERY WHEN EMPLOYING THE RESISTANCE TRAINING CONTRAST METHOD DOES NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT SUBSEQUENT JUMP PERFORMANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF CONCURRENT TRAINING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was revised my corrections request in the first round.
Experimental design: The manuscript was revised my corrections request in the first round.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript was revised my corrections request in the first round.
Additional comments: The manuscript was revised my corrections request in the first round.


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: UTILISING ONE MINUTE AND FOUR MINUTE RECOVERY WHEN EMPLOYING THE RESISTANCE TRAINING CONTRAST METHOD DOES NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT SUBSEQUENT JUMP PERFORMANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF CONCURRENT TRAINING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors properly responded to my asks and amended the manuscript according to my suggestions. Thank you
Experimental design: Proper and well explained experimental design
Validity of the findings: Findings can be considered as valid
Additional comments: Thank you for amending the manuscript according to my comments and suggestions.


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: UTILISING ONE MINUTE AND FOUR MINUTE RECOVERY WHEN EMPLOYING THE RESISTANCE TRAINING CONTRAST METHOD DOES NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT SUBSEQUENT JUMP PERFORMANCE IN THE PRESENCE OF CONCURRENT TRAINING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: The inclusion of ICC and CV values, and discussion of these values greatly improved the conclusions of this paper. Considering the CV and ICC values, my only suggestion is that further comment on the use of the drop jump in future research may benefit researchers in this area. Particular when other options are available to assess force-time characteristics using the CMJ or SJ as mentioned in text.
Additional comments: Well done on putting together this re-submission. I believe the quality of this paper has been enhanced considerably.


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: PLASTOME STRUCTURE AND ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION OF CALANTHE S.L. SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: All of these aspects are fine.
Experimental design: Experimental design is appropriate, but the reserach question is not clearly defined and strays into higher-level orchid phylogenetics, to which topic five closely plastome sequencs contributes very little. Methods etc. are all good.
Validity of the findings: Generally the findings are OK, but the higher-level analysis of Epidedroideae should be deleted, for the reasons provided below.
Additional comments: The ability to easily and quickly sequence whole plastid genomes has increased in recent years and has now made it possible to produce these for low-level taxonomic and population genetic studies. For example, Dodsworth et al. (2020) has done this for multiple accessions of Nicotiana sect. Suaveolentes, but unfortunately in some group there is pervasive retention of ancestral polymorphisms that make plastid DNA data unreliable for assessing infra-specific and low-level interspecific relationships/biogeographic patterns. Nonetheless, these data provide potentially useful tools for low-level taxonomic and population-level studies. This paper provides information about the most variable loci and polymorphic regions in Calanthe s.l., which can provide these sorts of tools for this and related genera. It is thus worthwhile publishing, but I do feel that the focus of the paper needs to be refined because it seems that the authors are more focused on higher-level orchid phylogenetics, and for this the paper is poorly suited. I recommend that the paper be refocused solely on Calanthe s.l. low-level studies and delete the orchid phylogenetic analysis, which contributes nothing to what is known about higher-level phylogenetics and sets a precedent for every future small set of orchid plastome sequences to be included in a re-analysis all previously published plastomes. This is not the way to improve what is known about higher-level relationships of Orchidaceae.

Unfortunately, the most variable genes and hypervariable non-coding regions are not generalizable in most groups of plants, including orchids. The regions found to be variable in Niu et a. (2017. The complete plastome sequences of four orchid species: insights into the evolution of Orchidaceae and the utility of plastomic mutational hotspots. Front Plant Sci. 8: 715. pmid:28515737) are not the same as in Smidt et al. (2020. Characterization of sequence variability hotspots in Cranichideae plastomes (Orchidaceae, Orchidoideae). PLoS One 15: e02278991. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227991), so this paper should be focused on the value of these genomic sequences in Calanthe s.l.. The authors claim in the Abstract that “Phylogenetic analysis of Epidendroideae based on 62 plastomes indicates a close relationship between Calanthe s.l. and Eria, and the phylogenetic position of 11 tribes of Epidendroideae were clarified. They also admit that their findings are identical those portrayed in previous studies and conclude that although they “retrieved the highly resolution phylogeny of the Epidendroideae, to obtain a reliable inference a comprehensive sampling of the subfamily is necessary as limited taxon sampling can result in different tree topologies (Puslednik and Serb, 2008).” In other words, to improve our understanding of Epidendroideae relationships we should not be increasing sampling by adding only five new closely related plastomes but rather sampling more intensively across the subfamily and adding a hundred or more plastome sequences.

Other aspects of the paper seem to be conducted properly and to have provided useful results. The English is not always handled well (as in the quoted sentences above), making some sentences difficult to understand. It needs to be gone over by a native speaker to clear up these problems. I did some of this at the start of the paper, but I gave up because the job is too big.

Finally, the correct name for these genomic sequences is “plastome” or “plastid genome”, not the “chloroplast genome” or “cp genome”. The amplification of these sequences was done from whole cellular DNA, which includes chloroplasts, amyloplasts, chromoplasts etc., which all share the same genome, the plastid genome. Chloroplast genome is widely used in the literature, but this is incorrect.


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: PLASTOME STRUCTURE AND ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION OF CALANTHE S.L. SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 'no comment'
Experimental design: The manuscript is well written and meets the standard of experimental design in a comparative analysis of chloroplast genomes. However, I believe that the gene annotation can be better detailed and that some methods are not clear enough (such as the analysis of the diversity hotspot regions). I made some comments and suggestions line-by-line in the parts that I believe can improve.
Validity of the findings: I suggest that the authors reconsider the relationship between some SSR regions and possible barcode markers in this manuscript. A more refined analysis with more individuals would be necessary for this type of assumption.
Additional comments: Line 21 – I think that the number of chloroplast genomes can be updated;
Line 52 - References are necessary for this statement. Maybe put some information about the number of species would make that phrase more precise.
Line 107 - If there are more than 200 orchid chloroplast genomes available, why were only these 18 species chosen as references? What was the criterion for selecting these 18 species?
Line 109 - The name of the program is "Geneious Prime" and not "Geneious Primer." Geneious Primer is a suite with an extensive set of genome annotation tools. I think the information on the annotation of chloroplast genomes needs to be more detailed.
Line 120 – The program mVISTA needs a reference genome to calculate the sequence identity of each genome in the analysis. What was the reference sequence used in this analysis?
Line 122 - As the analysis performed by mVista is based on similarity with a reference genome, I believe it is not the best way to identify mutational hotspots. I think that an analysis of nucleotide diversity across the genome is the most appropriate way to identify mutational hotspots.
Line 281 - I am not sure if it is a good idea to list microsatellites as possible barcode markers in this case. Only one specimen of each species was sampled, and an experimental design that calculates the intraspecific variation of these regions is a more robust way of assessing whether these SSRs are promising for DNA Barcode. I believe that the results obtained in this article do not support this type of statement.


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

Input:
Title: PLASTOME STRUCTURE AND ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION OF CALANTHE S.L. SPECIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript needs proofreading. There are many typos and unclear sentences.
Experimental design: The material and methods lacks details.
Validity of the findings: The SSR regions are not promise for DNA barcode.
Additional comments: In the submitted manuscript, Chen et al. sequenced five plastid genomes from Calanthe s.l.. The authors performed a detailed characterization of these plastomes and phylogenetic inferences within Epidendroideae. They also screened the most variable regions in these plastomes. These data are of broad interest, including for future studies of population genetics and evolution in orchids.
However, the material and methods lacks details about the plastome assembly. The results on genome depth of coverage, number of reads, % of plastid reads are lacking.
The MS needs proofreading, some regions are highlighted in yellow in the pdf.
The authors should avoid unspecific expressions (highly variable, significantly shorter, relatively low, etc.).
The authors pointed out that they have chosen Calanthe because of its variation in life form, from obligate epiphytic to hemi-epiphytic and then terrestrial. However, this matter is barely discussed throughout the manuscript.
More details were provided as comments in the pdf file.


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

Input:
Title: PLASTOME STRUCTURE AND ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION OF CALANTHE S.L. SPECIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Ok.
Experimental design: Ok.
Validity of the findings: Ok.
Additional comments: The authors did a good job of revising the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: PLASTOME STRUCTURE AND ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION OF CALANTHE S.L. SPECIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: The manuscript has been carefully reviewed by the authors and can be accepted for publication.


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

Input:
Title: INTEGRATING MULTIPLE MICROARRAY DATASET ANALYSIS AND MACHINE LEARNING METHODS TO REVEAL THE KEY GENES AND REGULATORY MECHANISMS UNDERLYING HUMAN INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Review by a primary English writer for grammar, English composition. Several mistakes should be corrected in the manuscript. Such as:
Page 6: 69-72 “Diagnosis of degenerative disc disease is difficult, and currently available treatment and management strategies for IDD primarily involve conservative or surgical treatment to relieve pain, without resolving underlying tissue pathology(An et al. 2003;  Zaina et al. 2016).” “involve” maybe not suit in the present context, “consist of” may be more appropriate.
Page 6: 72-73 “Therefore, a detailed understanding of the molecular and cellular events that underlie the formation of IDD is needed to identify diagnostic markers and design new therapeutic targets.” This sentence needs to be rewritten. “to” is not suited in the sentence.
Page 10: 239-243 “Recent developments in bioinformatics and computational Biology has led to the identification of several key genetic targets related to IDD and potential molecular mechanisms have also been predicted (Petryszak et al.2014). In this study, integrated analysis of multi-microarray datasets including two mRNA expression profiles, two miRNA expression profiles, one mRNA-lncRNA expression profile, and a circRNA expression profile, associated with IDD was downloaded from the GEO database.” “Biology” should be corrected as biology. “multi-microarray datasets” is incorrect in English. The sentence, “In this study, integrated analysis of multi-microarray datasets including two mRNA expression profiles, two miRNA expression profiles, one mRNA-lncRNA expression profile, and a circRNA expression profile, associated with IDD was downloaded from the GEO database.” should be rewritten.
Page 11: 266-267 The sentence, “The ceRNA hypothesis is a new gene regulatory model that plays an important role in various diseases.”, should be rewritten.
Page 12: 294-295 “In conclusion, in this study, BCAS4 and SCRG1as were identified as key genes associated with the progression of IDD using bioinformatics analysis and machine-learning methods.” “as” should be deleted.
Page 12: 295-296 The sentence, “Besides, 3 miRNAs and 3 circRNAs were shown to play a vital role in IDD through interaction with key genes after constructing a ceRNA network.”, should be rewritten.
2.	Page 6: 67-69 “Previous studies have indicated that nucleus pulposus (NP) cell apoptosis (Jiang et al. 2013), and several other factors including genetic and environmental factors are the main causes of IDD (Battie et al. 2008)”.
Genetic and environmental factors are the primary influencing factors of IDD. Nucleus pulposus cell apoptosis is a phenomenon and process observed in the degeneration, not a cause of IDD. This statement is not accurate.
3.	Page 7: 109-110 “DEGs, miRNA(DEMs), lncRNAs (DELs), and circRNAs (DECs) in IDD compared to normal discs tissues were identified using the “Limma” R package (Ritchie et al. 2015).”
The abbreviations in the sentence should be normalized.
4.	Page 10: 234-235 “NP plays an important role in maintaining the intervertebral disc homeostasis by synthesizing aggrecan, type II collagen, and extracellular matrix (ECM).”
Aggrecan and type II collagen are the components of ECM. This statement is not accurate.
5.	Page 6: 75-97 “Genetic factors play a significant role in the development of IDD, and variants in several genes have been identified (Battie et al. 2008). Studies have reported that vitamin D receptor (VDR), COL1A1, and COL9a3 genes are associated with the degeneration of the lumbar disc, and this is significantly more pronounced in individuals with multiple mutations (Toktas et al. 2015) . In another study, bioinformatics analyses revealed that five genes (FYN, PRKCD, YWHAB, YWHAZ, and AR) were associated with IDD (Ji et al. 2015). However, the relationship between genes and IDD remains controversial and there is a need for further studies.”
Page 6: 88-92 “Tan et al. suggested that LncSNHG1 promotes NP cell proliferation by suppressing miR-326 expression and upregulating CCND1 expression (Tan et al. 2018). Wang et al. demonstrated that circRNA_4099 can sponge to miR-616-5p and eliminate the inhibition of Sox9 by miR-616-5p hence increasing the secretion of the extracellular matrix (Wang et al. 2018). However, the regulatory mechanism of the lncRNA/circRNA-miRNA-mRNA network in the IDD has not been explored.”
In the introduction segment, the authors should provide a greater perspective on the number of studies that have addressed this same research question, analyze the unsolved question exist in this aspect, and expound why this research question is urgent and meaningful.
Experimental design: 6.	Page 7: 110-115 “Different thresholds were used according to the conditions of each dataset. The specific screening thresholds for DEGs were as follows: GSE34095 dataset was p-value< 0.05; GSE15227 dataset was p-value< 0.01 & |log2FC|≥2; GSE116726 dataset was p-value< 0.01& |log2 FC|>2. The GSE67566, GSE63492, and GSE56081 datasets were obtained from the same tissue samples, and the differential expression analysis results and thresholds were uploaded in the raw data (Table S1,S2;Document S1,S2）.”
P-value< 0.05 and |log2FC|≥2 is the generally accepted screening thresholds for the differential expressed genes. In the authors’ study, different thresholds were set for several data sets. Context should be added to further explain the rationale for the setting of different thresholds.
Validity of the findings: 7.	Page 11: 257-262 “SCRG1 (scrapie responsive gene 1) was first discovered in the brain of scrapie-infected mice (Dandoy-Dron et al. 1998) . Recent studies have shown that SCRG1 is closely related to neurodegeneration, and is an important regulator of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) self-renewal, migration and osteogenic differentiation with its receptor BST1 (Aomatsu et al. 2014; Dron et al. 2006) . SCRG1 gene encodes a 98-amino acid, a cytokine-like protein that is highly conserved in mammals and has no significant homology to any other known protein(Dandoy-Dron et al. 2003; Dron et al. 2000) .”
SCRG1 is a member of human genes, the Ensemble Gene ID of which is ENSG00000164106. The description of SCRG1 in Ensemble is “stimulator of chondrogenesis 1”.  Scrg1 is a member of the mouse genetic base, the description of which in Ensemble is “scrapie responsive gene 1”, with the gene ID of ENSMUSG00000031610. The discussion should be expanded about the SCRG1, not Scrg1.
8.	There are several statements and recommendations in the discussion section that are not supported by this study. The authors are encouraged to remove biased language and hyperbole throughout the manuscript. such as :
page 11: 262-263 “The high conservation suggests that BCAS4 and SCRG1 can serve as good diagnostic markers of IDD.”
page 11: 278-279 “Therefore, based on these previous findings, this study presents new insights into the molecular mechanism of IDD development.”
page 12: 296-297 “These are reliable and effective molecular targets for the diagnosis and treatment of IDD.”
9.	The tissue samples used in the six data sets were different. While GSE34095 and GSE15227 are the disc tissue, the other four are the NP tissue. The analysis across the six data sets may led to a violated validation of results.
The authors are encouraged to consider discussing the limitations of the study, including but not limited to the item mentioned above.
Additional comments: The authors presented an integrated analysis of several microarray datasets. Bioinformatics and machine learning methods were employed in the analysis. Several genes, miRNAs, and circRNAs were revealed as the key regulators involved in the degenerated progress. Crosstalk among mRNAs, miRNAs, lncRNAs, and circRNAs in IDD was displayed in the paper. The research perspective is very novel. I appreciate their eagerness to provide insights into this area.


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: INTEGRATING MULTIPLE MICROARRAY DATASET ANALYSIS AND MACHINE LEARNING METHODS TO REVEAL THE KEY GENES AND REGULATORY MECHANISMS UNDERLYING HUMAN INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is devoted to a meta-analysis of publicly available expression datasets for intervertebral disc degeneration by machine learning techniques. The paper is mostly well written, well referenced and properly organised. Figures and tables are of good quality. All the results are clearly presented and discussed. There are some minor inaccuracies in the typing, namely spaces between end of sentences and full stops, e.g. "(Dandoy-Dron et al. 1998) ."
Experimental design: The design of the study is sound, the study pipeline is clear, the methods are adequate. The study hypothesis is well defined. Methods are fully described and the study seems reproducible. A set of various ML methods was applied with cross-validation between them, thus increasing validity of the findings. This type of studies in rare in the field, therefore, must be encouraged.
Validity of the findings: Findings seem to be meaningful, some of the genes identified are known to be involved in IDD from other studies, thus proving the validity of the study. Any possible bias may be due to the use of publicly available datasets that can be biased one way or another. Discussion is relevant. All the raw and summary data is provided.
Additional comments: I have no specific issues with this study, it seems to be well thought and implemented. There are some minor issues to be addressed:
1. Make sure all gene names are in italic.
2. In introduction, you may want to mention the results of GWASs on IDD.
3. line 123: of the DEGs (Kuhn 2015). Recursive feature elimination (RFE), which is a machine-learning method, was used - which is a machine-learning method phrase is obsolete here
4. line 187: The parameters of the SVM model are shown in Fig.S3. In - just list the parameters in the text, no need for this figure
5. lines 201-202: including physical interactions, co-expression, predicted, co-localization, pathway, genetic interactions and shared protein domains, accounted for 67.64%, 13.50%, 6.35%, 6.17%, 4.35%, 1.40% and 0.59%, respectively. - it is unclear what this percentages represent, account for what? This needs to be rephrased.
6. Line 239: Biology -> biology
7. line 294: "In conclusion, in this study, BCAS4 and SCRG1as were identified as key genes associated with the progression" - you cannot claim these genes are associated with the progression of the IDD as you analysed cross-sectional data; to talk about progression you need to analysed longitudinal data. I would rephrased "key genes associated with the development".


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: INTEGRATING MULTIPLE MICROARRAY DATASET ANALYSIS AND MACHINE LEARNING METHODS TO REVEAL THE KEY GENES AND REGULATORY MECHANISMS UNDERLYING HUMAN INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript presents a valuable analysis of biomarker genes relevant to intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD). The topic itself is of importance since the gene signatures shed light on diagnosis and treatment of IDD. The paper is in general well organized. It is however not easy to follow – this is to some degree expected, given that many datasets and many bioinformatics approaches were introduced. I would suggest add more detailed and concrete explanations, especially detailed description of relationship between non-coding RNA and genes. The authors didn’t cite enough sources to provide background about this study: 1) several studies have been done to identify potential biomarkers for IDD using microarray data (DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2017.7741, https://www.scielo.br/pdf/gmb/v36n3/a21v36n3.pdf); 2) Since RNA-Seq has emerged as an alternative method for gene expression profiling, the results from RNA-Seq can be cited (i.e. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3684875). The workflow in Fig. S1 is very helpful for understanding experimental design in this study, but it should be well organized (i.e. all GEO dataset should be placed on the top; and arrow line shouldn’t cross boxes).
Experimental design: The topic itself fall within the scope of PeerJ and will be of interests to the readers of the journal. However, the aim and purpose of the study was not clearly presented: 1) why integrating multiple microarray datasets can improve identification of biomarkers; 2) what roles machine learning methods play in this study?. In Line 112, the different thresholds (p-value < 0.05 & p-value < 0.01) were used and the authors didn’t explain the reason why using different p-values. In “SVM model verification”, the authors should include more details about SVM models, such as kernel (it is very important, so don’t just put R output in Fig S3). I am wondering how the training dataset(s) and validation dataset(s) were decided. Also, there are different machine learning methods (random forest, K-nearest neighbors, decision tree etc.) which can be used for verification. So, the authors can apply these methods and do comparison.
Validity of the findings: Since several studies have been done for identification of biomarkers for IDD, the authors need to claim the novelty of this study.  Since only 13 genes were found overlap between DEGs from GSE34095 and GSE15227, they could be overlapped by chance (False positives). So, the authors should implement overlap test (i.e. hypergeometric test). In Line 192, I don’t think the sample size is reason of low AUC for GSE34095. In this study, BCAS4 and SCRG1 were identified as final key genes, however CRNKL1 was used to predict the relevant genes in Line 198 and 199. It doesn’t make sense.
Additional comments: The manuscript presents a valuable analysis of biomarker genes relevant to intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD). The topic itself is of importance since the gene signatures shed light on diagnosis and treatment of IDD. I would suggest add more detailed and concrete explanations.


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: INTEGRATING MULTIPLE MICROARRAY DATASET ANALYSIS AND MACHINE LEARNING METHODS TO REVEAL THE KEY GENES AND REGULATORY MECHANISMS UNDERLYING HUMAN INTERVERTEBRAL DISC DEGENERATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed all of concerns from my previous review.
Experimental design: The authors have revised the manuscript substantially and addressed  most of issues raised. The explanation about using different p-values for different experiment and microarray platform are not clear to me. I am wondering if the similar numbers of DEGs were generated from different experiments when using different p-values? I recommend that the authors add one or two more sentences to explain it.
Validity of the findings: The authors have thoroughly addressed my comments. The authors mentioned " Moreover, many studies have used the method of intersecting multiple datasets to further determine the differential expression genes." I recommend that the authors cite some references to them.
Additional comments: The manuscript is, in my opinion, ready to be published in PeerJ with minor corrections and clarifications.


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: UPPER-ROOM ULTRAVIOLET AIR DISINFECTION MIGHT HELP TO REDUCE COVID-19 TRANSMISSION IN BUILDINGS: A FEASIBILITY STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors performed a literature review and summarized the reported inactivation “Z’ values of UVC light from different published experiments based on different pathogens in air and surface samples.

The language is clear and the paper is well-written in Engish
Experimental design: Nevertheless, for the pathogen that causes COVID-19, tables 2 and 4 only provide data on UVA or UVB light in a Blood plasma sample from other published studies. The authors did not report the inactivation” z” values of airborne SARS-CoV-2 when exposed to UV-C light. Original or new experimental findings are expected. The simulation employed is a simple tool based on a well-mixed model. The equations are previously established and published in previous research.
Validity of the findings: The z values used in the model are based on assumption and were NOT validated with real experimental data.
Additional comments: see 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: UPPER-ROOM ULTRAVIOLET AIR DISINFECTION MIGHT HELP TO REDUCE COVID-19 TRANSMISSION IN BUILDINGS: A FEASIBILITY STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The reviewer considered the second paragraph of the abstract to be ”dense” and a little complex to read. If it is within the word count restriction and does not lead to lose of clarity of the main message, some further revision is suggested.

Page 10, Section 4 Discussion – second line “highly lightly” – should be “highly likely”

No further comments
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: Page 8, Section 3.1 Analysis – second paragraph  “mean Z value for SARS-CoV-1 was 0.00489” – however, reviewer found the mean to be 0.00619, likely to be an interpreted or weighted mean? Please check with Authors, and ensure this is clear within the results.

Page 9, Section 3.3 Upper-room results – second paragraph. The main findings seem perfectly acceptable and indeed translate well from the table, to the results, discussion, conclusions and finally to the abstract. However, given this is the basis of the paper, the reviewer decided to try and replicate the results from the formula [8], using the data given in Table 7, as might reader of the paper. This proved difficult, and could be due to reviewer not fully understanding the maths, or a translation of units. Again as above, it is advised to check with Authors.

No further comments
Additional comments: As the reviewer I am satisfied that the Authors have considered the how SARS-CoV-2 might be susceptible to UV-C light by analysing other viruses, trying to develop a UV-C susceptibility constant, Z. Then using this knowledge to investigate the efficacy of an upper-room reduction of the COVID-19 air transmission, and using the results generated to support their conclusions.


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: UPPER-ROOM ULTRAVIOLET AIR DISINFECTION MIGHT HELP TO REDUCE COVID-19 TRANSMISSION IN BUILDINGS: A FEASIBILITY STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Typo in first sentence of Discussion. "Lightly" should be "likely".
Typo in first line of page 12 in Discussion. "This finding is of course is".
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Covid-19 can be transmitted via droplets which may not be carried to the upper room zone by the indoor airflow. These larger droplets will eventually either deposit on surfaces or reduce in size due to evaporation, however there is a possibility that they could remain in the breathing zone for a significant period of time. Could the authors comment on this and its implications for the effectiveness of upper room UV?

The analysis assumes a well mixed room. The authors acknowledge this and refer to a paper which illustrates that this is likely an acceptable assumption for most rooms (reference 11). However an expanded discussion of the limitations of this assumption would be of value. Are there occurrences when this may not be a valid assumption and therefore the effectiveness of upper room UV might be reduced?
Additional comments: This is a very timely article by the authors as various control measures to mitigate the transmission rate of Covid-19 indoors are being considered. The authors make a convincing case that aerosolised SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be susceptible to UV-C irradiation using the evidence currently available in the literature. Their analysis demonstrates that high equivalent AC/H could be achieved by installing upper room UV.


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: UPPER-ROOM ULTRAVIOLET AIR DISINFECTION MIGHT HELP TO REDUCE COVID-19 TRANSMISSION IN BUILDINGS: A FEASIBILITY STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall the further work, with the clearer and improved abstract has enhanced the overall manuscript. Emphasising that the work is a feasibility study is also important, yet this does not detract from it being a timely piece of research.

I did not find any further typographical errors.

No further comments.
Experimental design: No further comments.
Validity of the findings: My previous comments on the validity of the analysis and results have been addressed by the authors to my satisfaction. Having worked through the example given, I am clear the calculations represent the results given.

No further comments.
Additional comments: As the reviewer I am satisfied that the Authors have considered the how SAR-CoV-2 might be susceptible to UV-C light by analysing other viruses, developing a UV-C susceptibility constant, Z. Then using this knowledge to investigate the efficacy of an upper-room reduction of the COVID-19 air transmission, and using the results generated to support their conclusions.

This was as per my previous review, I am now further convinced that this technology is important. Thus this feasibility study is timely and should act as a prompt for a study into how SAR-CoV-2 as an aerosol might be susceptible to UV-C light.


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: UPPER-ROOM ULTRAVIOLET AIR DISINFECTION MIGHT HELP TO REDUCE COVID-19 TRANSMISSION IN BUILDINGS: A FEASIBILITY STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: NA
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: I'd like to thank the authors for their response to my comments and am satisfied that they have been adequately addressed.


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: SOIL CARBON, NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS ECOLOGICAL STOICHIOMETRY SHIFTS WITH TREE SPECIES IN SUBALPINE PLANTATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: see "General comments for the author".
Experimental design: see "General comments for the author".
Validity of the findings: see "General comments for the author".
Additional comments: The study of “Effects of reforestation on soil carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus stoichiometric shifts depend on tree species in subalpine forests” by Qi et al addressed soil C:N:P ratio in different soil depth with various tree species. This study is meaningful in the reforestation field. However, many points should be attentioned in this study. Firstly, many results were described simply, especially for the section of Abstract and Results. Secondly, I suggest rewrite the section of Abstract, the present writing is not good. Thirdly, references should be carefully checked, many mistakes. Moreover, I suggest that increase some references of recent years. Furthermore, I suggest theauthors find a native English speaker to improve language. Therefore, I suggest major revision for this study.

Many points are mentioned here, but not all, as follows:

Abstract
L14, address the important meaning of studying soil stoichiometric ratio.
L18, list them in the first appearance.
L19-23, specific results should be described in this section. Describing how it changed, how much did it change, need more numbers to describe it.
L28, In conclusion…. I do not suggest the conclusion. I suggest that you should highlight the theme of this study.

Introduction
L34, I suggest “Nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P) are the most important nutrients promoting plant growth,”. Moreover, you should also say some points to C.
L36, delete point.
L37, define C.
L38-41, grammar mistake. I can not understand the sentence.
L43, delete in an ecosystem.
I suggest the second paragraph can be put as the first paragraph, and the first paragraph can mix together with the second paragraph.
L72-73, I suggest it is not a good hypothesis.

Results
L149-184, you should detailedly describe the results. For example, “the soil C was X.X time higher in 0-10 cm than 20-30 cm”. Describing the results by using some numbers.

Discussion
L212-220 I suggest many of them can put into the section of Introduction.
L221-226 Many expression are too absolute. You can change some expression.
L228-229 Grammar mistake.
L247 results showed.
L251-254 grammar mistake.
L258-259 reference mistake.
L263 our change with the

References
All the references should be rearranged.
Lacking of year of reference. For example, L299, L311, L331, L339-345, L351, L364, L371, L373, L379, L381, L399.
Some references list all authors, while some references list three authors.
Moreover, there were more small mistakes in this section, you should carefully check.

Table 3, AL-biomass: I suggest S is “c”, not “a”. Please check.
Fig. 3 increase standard error.