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: OVEREXPRESSION OF AMCBF1 ENHANCES DROUGHT AND COLD STRESS TOLERANCE, AND IMPROVES PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN TRANSGENIC COTTON
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this research AmCBF1 was isolated and transformed into upland cotton cultivar R15 to evaluate potential benefits. The results showed that transgenic plants had distinctly higher relative water content, chlorophyll content, soluble sugar content and lower ion leakage after drought and cold stress. The area of lower epidermal cells, stomatal density and root to shoot ratio varied significantly between transgenic cotton lines and R15. Photosynthetic ability in transgenic plants was inhibited after stress, net photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance and transpiration rate in transgenic plants were significantly higher than in R15. The results showed that the enhanced stress tolerance of transgenic cotton achieved by improving photosynthesis. The new transgenic cotton germplasm has the great application value to deal with the abiotic stress.
Experimental design: 1. Phenotype analysis of transgenic cotton was measured at the two-leaf stage, while lower epidermal cellarea, stomatal density, and photosynthesis were measured at the five-leaf stage of the fourth true leaf. Please clarify the reason for these two different stage and compare the effects on the results.
2. Regarding the plants cold treatment, I noticed that sometimes 4°C cold stress is used, and sometimes 15°C cold stress is used. Please discuss the difference between the two different temperature treatments.
3. If possible, transgenic cotton with 3 lines will much better than 2 lines of 28 and 30.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript is well written and the results, discussion and conclusion are well supported by the sufficient experimental evidences. The study is interesting and has informative data on cotton, an important commercial crop.
Additional comments: Please briefly introduce the CBF1 homologous genes in cotton endogenous.


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: OVEREXPRESSION OF AMCBF1 ENHANCES DROUGHT AND COLD STRESS TOLERANCE, AND IMPROVES PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN TRANSGENIC COTTON
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In the present study, authors have transformed AmCBF1 gene from the shrub Ammopiptanthus mongolicus into upland cotton cultivar R15 and characterized the role of this gene in response to drought and cold stress. They genotyped the transgenic lines and verified the copy number of the transgene by sequencing the genome of two selected transgenic lines. They studied different physiological parameters associated with photosynthesis during the control and stress conditions in R15 and the two transgenic lines. They observed a higher rate of photosynthesis in overexpression lines of cotton in comparison to R15.

Authors have provided a good literature background and included all the raw data of their experiments. They performed all the necessary experiments to support their hypothesis.

The authors have made a good attempt to describe their experimental results but I would highly recommend them to describe the experimental methods briefly and have a thorough grammatical and spell-check for the entire manuscript. The figure legends also need to include the abbreviations.
Details are provided in the comment section.

In my opinion, the major concern of this study is that they have identified a copy of DREB in the selected transgenic cotton lines which had 77.08% similarity with the AmCBF1 gene. But it is not clear whether they checked the sequence at the mRNA and protein level. Hence it would be good to include the transgenic lines expressing the empty vector, as a control in their study. Using this will help rule out the possibility of any changes associated with the transformation process.

Comments and suggestions:

Title and Introduction:

1.	Replace “enhance” with “enhances”

2.	Rephrase the sentence from line 11 to 16 in the Abstract section as: “AmCBF1 (Ammopiptanthus mongolicus C-repeat-binding factor) was isolated from the shrub Ammopiptanthus mongolicus, and inserted into upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivar R15 to evaluate the potential benefits of this gene. Two transgenic lines were selected and the transgene insertion site was identified by whole-genome sequencing. The results showed that AmCBF1 was incorporated into the cotton genome as a single copy”.

3.	Rephrase the sentence from line 33-38. It has been mentioned that northwest inland area is one of the largest producers of cotton and at the same time it is also mentioned that it has recently become the largest cotton-growing and producing area. So rephrase the sentence.

4.	In line 67 and 68 mention the source of the gene from which the gene was isolated. For example, “the apple gene MdDREB76”

Methods:

1.	After germination of the transgenic lines, why were they grafted to a different cotton variety? Is there a significance of this process? Fig 1B. showing the direct transplantation of the transgenic lines onto the soil. Please check and include the necessary corrections.

2.	Line 102: Provide the link for download of genome sequence of upland cotton variety and also include the reference

3.	It would be good to include a brief schematic of genotyping of transgenic cotton lines, describing the location of the different primers used in the study.

4.	Write as “supplementary table or figure” wherever applicable instead of “Supplement “

5.	Quantitative real-time PCR was done using the cDNA of the transgenic lines so please replace the term “qPCR” with qRT-PCR wherever applicable

6.	Please mention the generation of transgenic lines used for the phenotypic and qPCR analysis in material and methods section

7.	Rewrite line 117 as “For seed germination analysis, transgenic lines L28, L30 and upland cotton variety R15”

8.	For the physiological analysis of cold stress in transgenic cotton lines, the temperature used for the study was mentioned differently as 4°C but for other studies a temperature of 15°C was used. I’m curious why different temperatures were used?

9.	Provide proper description of the methods used to measure photosynthesis rate, stomatal conductance etc. and also include the appropriate references in the text. For example, in line 144-145, reference is not included for measuring net photosynthesis and other parameters. Also, briefly describe the SEM method too.

Results: Results need to be described with little more details.

1.	For example, the homology of DREB with AmCBF1 was compared but nowhere it was mentioned as whether it was the gene or mRNA sequence.
2.	In the section from line 177, describe the control results as well. The difference in root length was not significant in comparison to R15
3.	In the Fig 1D, mention as relative expression of AmCBF1
4.	For all the figure legends, please mention any abbreviations used. For example, in Fig 1, please describe P+, L, N, R
5.	In Fig 1D, what is SSU?
6.	For Fig 1E, mention the primer sets used for genotyping. It can be included either in the methods section or in the figure legends
7.	In discussion section, the sentence in line 260, “the relatively shorter shoot height and ……than that of R15” is not needed.
8.	Spell check line 299
9.	Fig S3, A12 insertion sequence was shown but the transgenic line was not mentioned, whether L28 or L30? It is good to include some details in the figure legends or in the manuscript
10.	Crosscheck the references and do a thorough spell-check
Experimental design: The experimental design and the number of replicates is appropriate. However authors have to describe the methods in little detail and provide appropriate references wherever applicable. Details included in the comments section.
Validity of the findings: Authors have conducted all the necessary experiments to support their hypothesis. They have performed the statistical analysis to show the significant differences between the wild type and transgenic cotton lines under control and stress conditions.
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: OVEREXPRESSION OF AMCBF1 ENHANCES DROUGHT AND COLD STRESS TOLERANCE, AND IMPROVES PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN TRANSGENIC COTTON
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: OVEREXPRESSION OF AMCBF1 ENHANCES DROUGHT AND COLD STRESS TOLERANCE, AND IMPROVES PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN TRANSGENIC COTTON
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have improved the manuscript by incorporating all the suggestions and comments. However, there are minor revisions needed and the same are included in the edited version uploading here.
Experimental design: As per the suggestions, the authors have described the experimental methods in detail. However, the figure legends should be included either in the figures itself or as a separate file with all the relevant details and abbreviations.
Validity of the findings: All are results are well described.
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: OVEREXPRESSION OF AMCBF1 ENHANCES DROUGHT AND COLD STRESS TOLERANCE, AND IMPROVES PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN TRANSGENIC COTTON
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed all the minor revisions suggested and the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: NUTRIENT COMPOSITION OF CHENOPODIUM FORMOSANUM KOIDZ. BRAN: FRACTIONATION AND BIOACTIVITY OF ITS SOLUBLE ACTIVE POLYSACCHARIDES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This MS aimed to design a laboratory systemic extraction process to isolate the polysaccharides from the bran of djulis. However,
1.There are nine figures and nine tables. This MS should concise and reorganize to make it more clear and readable. Many data are redundant and not necessary.
2.The mechnism or principle of seperation process should be mentioned in the introduction and compare with referrence in the discussion. In the conclusion, the contribution of this new process should be highlighted, not the plant itself.
3.Djulis is not quinoa. Red Quinoa is the name of one kind of the quinoa. In F9, the material seems not true for djulis grain. Furthermore, since indicaxanthin belongs to betaxanthain, and exhibits yellow color, the author should explain why measuring indicaxanthan at 532 nm (red color)?
4.It seems that the author is not familiar with the djulis material, I suggest the author check thoroughly and resubmit after rewriting.
Experimental design: The experiment seems not been well designed. The relevant and meaning of the research is not clear.
Validity of the findings: 1.For a new extraction process, the contribution of this MS is not clearly stated.
2.Most part of the conclusion should be shift to the part of introduction.
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: NUTRIENT COMPOSITION OF CHENOPODIUM FORMOSANUM KOIDZ. BRAN: FRACTIONATION AND BIOACTIVITY OF ITS SOLUBLE ACTIVE POLYSACCHARIDES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.This manuscript was well-written, experiment design and quality were enough for the requirement of this journal.
2. The literature's year author used in this introduction was too old, the author should add recent research related to Chenopodium formosanum. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14164679; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10020160
Experimental design: The author should show the growth year of this plant.
Validity of the findings: 1.The number of equation should be added.
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: NUTRIENT COMPOSITION OF CHENOPODIUM FORMOSANUM KOIDZ. BRAN: FRACTIONATION AND BIOACTIVITY OF ITS SOLUBLE ACTIVE POLYSACCHARIDES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is fairly easy to read and understand but contains some grammatical errors and incomplete sentences. The manuscript should be proofread by a native English speaker to increase clarity in many sections. The manuscript, in my opinion, is too long due to excessive description of textbook facts and repetition of results in the discussion section.
The phrase "Development of a Systemic Extraction Process for the Unique Polysaccharide" in the title should be removed as this is only part of the fractionation process for polysaccharides; the elements of optimisation are absent, hence, in my opinion, it is inaccurate to say "development of systemic xxx".
The conclusion should be short and concise - unnecessary factual accounts should be omitted.
Experimental design: The polysaccharide fractions have to be heated for dissolving them in the water, sonicated, heated overnight(?) and it was mentioned that only the supernatant was used (lines 284-286).
Which apparatus was used for overnight heating at 150 degrees Celsius (precise measurement of temperature)?
Provide the breakdown of the water-soluble and water insoluble fractions of the polysaccharides.
If only the supernatants were used, the authors actually accessed only the water-soluble fractions.
It is uncommon to come across procedures where extracts/fractions have to be heated overnight prior to analysis. I am concerned about potential changes to chemical composition or structures of compounds in the fraction as a result of this prolonged heating. It could be incompatible solvent (phosphate buffer) being used. Did the authors try other solvents to dissolve the fractions and/or to test at lower concentrations?
The choice of positive controls used in the antioxidant assays needs to be justified, for instance, why trolox was not used in place of BHA for the DPPH assay. IC50 values of the fractions in the antioxidant assays should have been included.
The MTT assay is commonly used to evaluate the effect of test substances on cell viability. It does not provide any information on the potential antiinflammatory activity of the polysaccharides as the authors claimed (lines 655-656). There are other established assays for assessment of antiinflammatory activity.
Statistical analysis is not clear or absent. In Figures 6 & 8, error bars are missing.
Justify the use of only fraction CF2 for cell viability analysis.
How did the authors determine the IC50 values?
Validity of the findings: The polysaccharides demonstrated antioxidant activity but at very high concentrations (in the range of mg/ml), hence, claims about the "potency" of the extracts should be revised. These values should be compared against to those in the literature. What is the authors' definition of "potent" samples?
There are many unsubstantiated claims (e.g., antiinflammatory activity) throughout the manuscript, for instance, "peptidoglucan CF-2, showing strong antioxidative and anti inflammatory bioactivity, speculatively, could become a rather useful medicine" (lines 669-670) and " not only exhibits potent antioxidative capability, but also shows a promising anti-inflammatory bioactivity in the RAW264.7 cell model" (lines 698-699).
Additional comments: The manuscript reports on the chemical characterisation  and bioactivities evaluation of red quinoa. In particular, the polysaccharides were systematically fractionated and the resulting fractions were subjected to chemical analysis, antioxidant and cell viability assays. The authors are commended for the large amount of data collected, however, analysis and interpretation of the results should be done in a careful manner. Specifically, avoid making unsubstantiated claims and erroneous conclusions (e.g., the claims about antiinflammatory activity based on MTT assay). In the discussion section, findings from this study should be compared to the literature on the quinoa but this is lacking. The proposed design for pilot scale process has nothing to do with the bulk data presented.


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: NUTRIENT COMPOSITION OF CHENOPODIUM FORMOSANUM KOIDZ. BRAN: FRACTIONATION AND BIOACTIVITY OF ITS SOLUBLE ACTIVE POLYSACCHARIDES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author had corrected the manuscript according to my comments.
Experimental design: The author had corrected the manuscript according to my comments.
Validity of the findings: The author had corrected the manuscript according to my comments.
Additional comments: The author had corrected the manuscript according to my comments.


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

Input:
Title: NUTRIENT COMPOSITION OF CHENOPODIUM FORMOSANUM KOIDZ. BRAN: FRACTIONATION AND BIOACTIVITY OF ITS SOLUBLE ACTIVE POLYSACCHARIDES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The new title (i.e., inclusion of the term 'breakdown') is misleading and does not reflect the content of the manuscript.
Data presentation and analysis needs improvement. There are simply too many figures and tables in this manuscript.
Many of these duplicate the same data set, for instance Fig. 3 with Table 4, Fig. 4 with Table 5 and Fig. 5 with Tables 6-9.
The chromatograms can be included as supplementary information instead. The same goes for the dose-response curves of the antioxidant assays, which are redundant if the outcome has been summarised in the form of IC50 values.
Some are unnecessary, such as Table 1. The the information can be included in the text itself.
The legend for Fig. 5A does not tally with the graph.
Objective writing is crucial in scientific manuscript. Subjective and emotive terms, for instance, in line 443 (astonishment) and 544 (amazingly), might be unsuitable.
Experimental design: The inclusion of a prolonged heating step in extracts preparation (i.e.50 or 150 degrees Celsius depending on the antioxidant assay) needs to be explained. The authors should try to use water or to prepare stock at lower concentrations. My concern would on the possibility of degradation of the more sensitive heat sensitive chemical components in the extracts - which has not been properly studied. If a centrifugation step is still required after that prolonged heating and only the supernatant was used for the assays  (suggesting that there is a significant amount of precipitate), then the overnight heating, in my opinion, cannot be justified. This is a major flaw of the present work.
Validity of the findings: The authors added the word "breakdown" in the title but there wasn't any work done to determine if there was indeed any decomposition of the polysaccharides and/or other chemical components in the extracts.

In fact, there was very little attempt to correlate the antioxidant activity with the chemical composition of the samples and/or polysaccharides in the entire manuscript.

The word "breakdown" in my previous review were misunderstood. I was referring the supernatant and precipitate fractions that were produced during the extracts preparation step.

It was claimed that the polysaccharides were good antioxidants (lines 443), particularly CF2 as "efficient" superoxide scavenger (line 623) but there was no other polysaccharides/extracts/samples that were included in the study for comparison purposes. How did the authors conclude that IC50 values of 0.26, 0.05, and 0.19 mg/mL can be considered as good/active?

The results could have been compared with the extensive literature on antioxidant capacity of polysaccharides/extracts so that a more rational conclusion can be drawn from this study.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed only some of the comments raised by the reviewers satisfactorily and modified the manuscript but there are many other issues that need to be 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: PHYTOCHEMICAL CONTENT, ESPECIALLY SPERMIDINE DERIVATIVES, PRESENTING ANTIOXIDANT AND ANTILIPOXYGENASE ACTIVITIES IN THAI BEE POLLENS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper aims to determine the total phenolic and flavonoid contents, antioxidant activities in simple non-cellular tests (DPPH, ABTS, TEAC, and FRAP assays), and anti-tyrosinase and anti-lipoxygenase activities of fractionated extracts of hexane, dichloromethane, and methanol obtained from six monofloral Apis mellifera bee pollen, i.e. Camellia sinensis, Mimosa diplotricha, Helianthus annuus, Nelumbo nucifera, Xyris complanate, and Ageratum conyzoides. The manuscript is well organized and meets the criteria of a professional article structure. The conclusions are consistent with the results obtained and with the data already existing in the literature. Literature references are also up-to-date and selected to provide sufficient background.

There is no explanation in the introduction section as to why bee pollen from these six plant species was selected for research.

The discussion also lacks an explanation of the potential application, including medicinal use, of the extracts tested in the manuscript.
Experimental design: The idea of the work seems to be very interesting as bee pollens are a rich source of many nutrients, including proteins, and are widely used as a natural dietary supplement. Therefore, the subject of the manuscript most closely corresponds to the journal's aims and scopes. The materials and methods are described quite thoroughly, although, in the case of the place of origin of the samples, an additional table must be added to the manuscript.

L123-124: Please add a table for all tested samples with the exact location (longitude and latitude) of the sample collection site and the exact time of collection.

Additionally, the manuscript contains far too many tables and figures. The Authors should only leave Figures 1, 6, 8 (Fig. 3 should be transferred to the supplements); Tables 2-5 (Table 1 should be transferred to the supplements), and Supplements 8-12.

Figures: 2, 4, 5, 7, and Supplements: 1-7 should be removed, as they present the same results presented only in a different form.

Minor issues:
L1-4: Please change the title of the manuscript as it suggests testing only bee pollen from one plant.
L395-403: Please use the Rf values in the description of the TLC plate profiles of five different fractions (DCMMBP1-5).
L360-364: Why was ascorbic acid activity (positive standard) not tested in the FRAP test?
L512: in vitro should be in italics.
L632: Hippesastrum x hortorum should be in italics.
Validity of the findings: In my opinion, the submission requires major editions and improvement at a few points, the main of which are listed above.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: PHYTOCHEMICAL CONTENT, ESPECIALLY SPERMIDINE DERIVATIVES, PRESENTING ANTIOXIDANT AND ANTILIPOXYGENASE ACTIVITIES IN THAI BEE POLLENS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Thanks for giving me opportunity to review this manuscript. The manuscript entitled, "Phytochemical content, especially spermidine derivatives, presenting antioxidant and anti-lipoxygenase activities in Mimosa diplotricha bee pollen" has been well written and nicely presented by the authors.

I would like to recommend this article for acceptance in your journal after minor correction.
My suggestion is if you want to add Fig. 2, you should add data of all samples along with control ascorbic acid in different concentrations with all assays, otherwise you can remove Fig. 2.


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: PHYTOCHEMICAL CONTENT, ESPECIALLY SPERMIDINE DERIVATIVES, PRESENTING ANTIOXIDANT AND ANTILIPOXYGENASE ACTIVITIES IN THAI BEE POLLENS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The manuscript titled “Phytochemical content, especially spermidine derivatives, presenting antioxidant and antilipoxygenase activities in Mimosa diplotricha bee pollen” by Khongkarat and others describes a detailed phytochemical analysis of six A. mellifera BP samples with bioguided isolation of triferuloyl spermidines. This is a well-planned study and the results obtained are interesting. I have the following comments for the authors to address.
1.	Revised the title. The present title is not informative.
2.	In the abstract, reduce the usage of obtained numerical values.
3.	Write a reference for the sentence “In Thailand, some dominant floral origins are different from those 109 in other countries” in the introduction section.
4.	Abbreviations must be defined at first use in the text. There is excessive use of abbreviations particularly in the Tables and Figures. These must be defined in their respective locations.
5.	The results should be written keeping in view the statistical summaries of the data.
6.	There is similarity of data presented here with the manuscript published by same authors in the same journal (PeerJ 10:e12722). Repetition of data must be avoided.
7.	Each supplemental file must have proper titles and description. Also define the abbreviations used in these supplemental files.
8.	The English language should be improved.


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

Input:
Title: PHYTOCHEMICAL CONTENT, ESPECIALLY SPERMIDINE DERIVATIVES, PRESENTING ANTIOXIDANT AND ANTILIPOXYGENASE ACTIVITIES IN THAI BEE POLLENS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: -
Experimental design: -
Validity of the findings: -
Additional comments: The manuscript has been revised in accordance with the Reviewers' recommendations and is now suitable for publication in PeerJ.


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

Input:
Title: CHROMATIN ACCESSIBILITY LANDSCAPE OF STROMAL SUBPOPULATIONS REVEALS DISTINCT METABOLIC AND INFLAMMATORY FEATURES OF PORCINE SUBCUTANEOUS AND VISCERAL ADIPOSE TISSUE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1) The manuscript is written in clear and unambiguous, professional English and requires only minor corrections.
2) Literature references are sufficient to provide the scientific context
3) The figures and tables do not raise any concerns.
Regarding the article structure:
- The Abstract would benefit from the "Conclusion(s)" section.
- In the Discussion, at least some limitations of the study should be mentioned
4) The study design should be improved to increase the value of the results.
Experimental design: In their work, Wenyang Sun et al. studied the impact of differences in chromatin accessibility on gene expression in adipose tissue-derived stromal vascular fractions (SVFs) from SAT and VAT in a porcine model of diet-induced obesity. They found that distinct chromatin accessibility patterns may play a significant role in transcriptional regulation in these tissues. The study concept is interesting, and all molecular and bioinformatic analyses do not raise any concerns. However, some points regarding the study design impact the value of the obtained findings.
1)	The tissues analyzed in the study were obtained from just two animals. Was the number of studied animals sufficient to get reliable results?
2)	To verify if the study findings are obesity-specific, control experiments on tissues obtained from non-obese animals on a standard diet should be performed.
Validity of the findings: The above-mentioned methodological limitations decrease the value of the study findings.
Additional comments: Minor revisions:
Abstract:
1)	"Subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) have distinct
characteristics in adipose metabolism and impaired inflammation response, thus causing their different effects in metabolic disorders.” –  Impaired inflammatory response refers only to dysfunctional adipose tissue, e.g., in the course of obesity, not to SAT and VAT of  healthy subjects

2)	The Abstract would benefit from the "Conclusion(s)" section.

Introduction:

1)	“Generally, two major white adipose tissues (WATs) are recognized: subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT)” – in the literature, SAT and VAT are considered as distinct WAT depots, not different types of WAT.
2)	When describing the functional differences between VAT and SAT, the Authors should keep a balance and at least mention the works that point at the contribution of SAT dysfunction to the development of metabolic complications of obesity.
3)	This section of the manuscript should contain a formulated aim of the study.

Whole manuscript:
-	Please explain abbreviations as they occur in the text for the first time, e.g., DHS-associated, IL, etc.


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

Input:
Title: CHROMATIN ACCESSIBILITY LANDSCAPE OF STROMAL SUBPOPULATIONS REVEALS DISTINCT METABOLIC AND INFLAMMATORY FEATURES OF PORCINE SUBCUTANEOUS AND VISCERAL ADIPOSE TISSUE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is easy to follow. I have a few minor comments on the writing:
1. In the summary of the results in the beginning of the manuscript (line 37), the authors use abbreviations SVFs, SAT and VAT. I would prefer the authors write them out here; for a reader who is just looking over the first page summary it is easier to follow with the abbreviations written out in the main text. The abbreviations are fine in the other parts of the manuscript.
2. The authors in some cases write out numbers in words (line: 290,293,357) and in some cases use just the numeric numbers (line: 324, 325 ). I ask the authors to be consistent in one format.
3. The numbering of the supplemental table and the text are not matching up:
Line 226 should refer to table 3 not 2
Line 275, 276  should refer to table 4
Line 296, 294 also has the wrong table numbering
Please make sure the numbering is consistent (so that the right data is referenced in the text).
4. The supplemental table lacks some more annotation so it is easier to follow what is presented in each column.

The figures in the manuscript are overall easy to follow and understand. I have the following minor suggestions:
1. For the heat maps in figure 1A and figure 3A the legend number should be in a larger font and the z-axis is missing the label.
2. In Figure 2C and Figure 3E the label of the y-axis are in a faint gray color and hard to read. I would suggest increasing the font size and making the text black.

The relevant raw data is available in the supplemental data.

Minor comments:
In the introduction (line 48), a reference to the threat posed by obesity to global health is missing. Overall the introduction could include some of the more recent publications in the field e.g.

Karlsson T, Rask-Andersen M, Pan G, et al. Contribution of genetics to visceral adiposity and its relation to cardiovascular and metabolic disease. Nat Med 2019; 25: 1390–95. 65
Marinou K, Hodson L, Vasan SK, et al. Structural and functional properties of deep abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue explain its association with insulin resistance and cardiovascular risk in men. Diabetes Care 2014; 37: 821–29

Otherwise the introduction clearly sets up the research question.
Experimental design: The methods used in this study are clearly described in the methods section and the study is conducted with satisfactory technical and ethical standards.
The authors use two Bama miniature pigs to investigate the difference in chromatin accessibility between subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT). The authors use a previously established modified DNase-seq protocol called liDNase-seq that allows de novo mapping of DHS with only a small number of input cells.
It has been known that VAT is biochemically different from SAT and the expression of inflammatory associated features in VAT are speculated to be responsible for its association with diseases. The authors’ findings tie into these hypotheses by reporting on differences in cis-regulatory elements between SAT and VAT.

Comments on the results/data of the paper:

1.	The samples used are limited and therefore the data has only 2 biological replicates. I would like the authors to discuss this limitation briefly in the discussion section, including any variability between the replicates.
2.	The authors comment on genes that are identified in the DNase-seq analysis of chromatin accessibility such as ELOVLE4 and the promoter region of PIK3Cβ, but do not mention whether these genes are identified in the RNA-seq experiment. If the DNase-seq experiment suggests up-regulation of the genes, evidence should be seen in the RNA-seq data. The authors should comment on that. The same is true for the finding of PDPR from the H3K27C-ChiP-seq experiment.
3.	 Furthermore, the GO term analysis of the data finds up-regulation of genes involved in neuron development. This seems to be an unexpected finding - I would like the authors to comment on that finding and discuss it in the context of the literature.
4. 	 It is interesting that only a small number of 20 genes are found to overlap in all 3 analyses. The authors only focus on 2 genes (CRYM, NR1D1) that are explored and discussed in more detail, which is suitable for the main text of the manuscript given the genes’ known functions. Nevertheless, for the interested reader it would be great to provide some context of the known functions of the other 18 genes as well as presentation of the data such as shown in Figure 4E for CRYM and NR1D1. These can be attached in a supplemental table and figure.
Validity of the findings: In the context of the two biological replicates, the findings and data analysis of the manuscript are good and valid. The data tie into the reported findings in the literature and add new investigation of cis-regulatory elements in adipose tissue. More biological replicates would lead to a more robust analysis, but that may be outside of the scope of this manuscript. The selection of pigs as a model system makes this study relevant to human physiology.
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: CHROMATIN ACCESSIBILITY LANDSCAPE OF STROMAL SUBPOPULATIONS REVEALS DISTINCT METABOLIC AND INFLAMMATORY FEATURES OF PORCINE SUBCUTANEOUS AND VISCERAL ADIPOSE TISSUE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I want to express my gratitude for the opportunity to re-review the paper entitled: " Chromatin accessibility landscape of stromal subpopulations reveals distinct metabolic and inflammatory features of porcine subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue" by Wenyang Sun et al. Since the authors addressed my concerns regarding the methodology as well as some minor revisions, I find the manuscript acceptable 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: CHROMATIN ACCESSIBILITY LANDSCAPE OF STROMAL SUBPOPULATIONS REVEALS DISTINCT METABOLIC AND INFLAMMATORY FEATURES OF PORCINE SUBCUTANEOUS AND VISCERAL ADIPOSE TISSUE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The revised manuscript has addressed my previous concerns.
Experimental design: The revised manuscript has addressed my previous concerns.
Validity of the findings: The revised manuscript has addressed my previous concerns.
Additional comments: The authors have addressed my comments in their written response and changed the manuscript to reflect that. The authors now address the limitation of the study in an honest way, which will help the reader to put it into context. The authors have fixed the numbering and information in the supplementary data.
I think the manuscript can be published with the included changes.


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: DOWN-REGULATED NEDD4L FACILITATES TUMOR PROGRESSION THROUGH ACTIVATING NOTCH SIGNALING IN LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction provides some interesting findings about the role of NEDD4L in lung-related diseases, including lung cancer, but one actually misses background on the biochemical function of NEDD4L as a E3 Ubiquitin Protein Ligase. Also , the full "name" of NEDD4L (= NEDD4 Like E3 Ubiquitin Protein Ligase) is never explained. In addition, I miss some background related to the biochemical functions of NEDD4L, and its close relative, NEDD4, in particular their role in ubiquitination of proteins and degradation of target proteins by the proteasome. That should be the 1st paragraph of the introduction, and clearly relates to the findings related to NOTCH2 functions, explained later.

Then, one may also wonder about the relevance of NEDD4, in a study about NEDD4L: how closely related are these 2 family members? Do they partially overlap or complement each others functions; can one replace the others, etc. This would be relevant for understanding the effects of only knocking down one of these 2 related genes.

Smaller issues:

English language use is mostly okay, but there are a number of typos and glitches, even in the abstract, that need to be fixed. For example (from abstract, line 36): "NEDD4L facilitates LUAD progression by activating Notch signaling, and may be a promising target for treat LUAD."  Should either mean "to treat" or "for treatment of"....

Line 89: "Total RNAs were isolated from LUAD cells"....should mean:  total RNA was isolated

Line 117: "A549 cells were overexpressed with NEDD4L and were then treated with Chx". Thats just not a good sentence...
Experimental design: There are no major flaws with the description of the research methods. The authors have used a good spectrum of different methods that partly supplement each other, and covered mRNA and protein gene expression equally well. They have looked into effects on tumor and normal cells and even used mouse xenograft studies. In addition, when cell lines were used, typically more than just one line has been used and there should be no major discrepancies that arent covered here; such as when researchers only use a single cell line for all experiments.

It is also to mention that the authors did not only generate gene knock-down studies (by siRNA or shRNA vectors), but also tested the opposing concept: overexpression of the target gene, in comparison to down-regulation. Also here, different cell lines were used which complement each other. These data are rather trustworthy and the experimental design provides no points for major criticism.

One could question if the use of 10 nude mice for the xenograft studies provides sufficient statistical power, especially if there were minor phenotypic effects of NEDD4L-knockdown.

Otherwise, the statistical evaluation of results appears appropriate and there are no conclusions anywhere from doubtful statistical procedures or misinterpretations.
Validity of the findings: One may wonder why the cell lines have only partially reduced expression of NEDD4L since there appears such a positive benefit for loss of function of this target for cell proliferation and growth. Is it in fact gene dosage of NEDD4L expression and functions that are tightly regulated in these cells, while total loss of function appears to be avoided - also in tumor tissues? How do the authors explain this?

What is the reason for the repression of NEDD4L expression in tumor tissues - have the authors explored the possibility of genetic alterations (deletions) in at least some of the tumors? This could be at least discussed.

Generally, the reduction of NOTCH2 and particular NOTCH1 levels observed are not very pronounced, especially when significant changes of NODD4L levels are introduced. This raises the question if this is functionally really that significant - and if NEDD4L may rather have many pleiotropic effects on many different genes? This would be expected, as it is involved in regulating the function of the proteasome and protein degradation efficacy inside the cell. Would knocking down NOTCH2 expression (by siRNA?) result in comparable phenotypic effects? Pharmacological inhibition of NOTCH receptors is done (Fig. 4), but this targets all NOTCH receptors and downstream activities (plus a spectrum of off-target effects). Knocking down the NOTCH receptors specifically - in particular, NOTCH1 and 2 - would have been more conclusive.

The non-overlapping nature of NEDD4 versus NEDD4L is discussed in the last paragraph of the manuscript, and it is critical that this is done. This part, however, could also be at least mentioned in the introduction. It leaves the reader poised for the question the entire time you read the manuscript: are these 2 genes doing the same job?

Nevertheless, the question about biological redundancy remains: NOTCH1 and 2 may be affected - but how are expression levels of these 2 relative to EACH other? In figure 3, the effects of NEDD4L knock-down or overexpression on NOTCH1-4 proteins are shown. But Western blots are not really quantitative and cannot be compared to each other if different antibodies are used. What are the relative expression levels of NOTCH1-4 compared to each other? Is NOTCH2 maybe the most abundantly expressed of the 4 receptors? This should be addressed - it may further support the main findings and their interpretation. It appears that NOTCH2 is the only NOTCH receptor that is frequently affected by genetic mutations (usually amplifications) in lung adenocarcinoma. I would therefore almost expect that NOTCH2 is functionally more important in this cancer subtype than the other 3.
Additional comments: The main problem with this manuscript is probably related to the non-specificity of NEDD4L functions: it may target a large number of targets, of which NOTCH1 and 2 are just 2 examples. So this opens a bunch of questions that are actually less related to NEDD4L (and its relative NEDD4), but to NOTCH signaling. How do we know that an active NOTCH signaling pathway is a positive thing for the tumor cells? Only about 10% of the LUADs show overexpression of NOTCH receptors - and interestingly, this is mostly NOTCH2. IN almost all of these tumors, genetic amplification of the NOTCH2 locus can be observed. These tumors may indeed strongly benefit from increased NOTCH signaling - and reducing NOTCH levels would be expected to result in lower proliferation rates. However - what is with the rest of 80-90% of tumors that either shows no changes in NOTCH activity or expression - or even have inactivating mutations? It would be interesting to correlate expression levels and gain-of-function in NOTCH2 in the r tumor cell lines with the findings. Are these cell lines showing true activation of NOTCH2 activity, or NOTCH pathway activity; do they harbor amplification, or is NOTCH not really increased in these? That's, to me, an outstanding question.
If NOTCH activities in the 3 cell lines aren't fundamentally critical for tumor growth, and not highly activated in comparison to normal lung epithelia - then the NOTCH pathway may not be the best target for exploring NEDD4L functions.


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: DOWN-REGULATED NEDD4L FACILITATES TUMOR PROGRESSION THROUGH ACTIVATING NOTCH SIGNALING IN LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is overall well-written. However, I would recommend the authors to proofread it once more due to some minor errors spotted during my read. To exemplify, a few of the errors are listed below:

1) Abstract: Line 2 "ubiquitin ligase" instead of "ubiquitinligase."
2) Line 120: "interference" in place of "interfere."
3) Line 136: "Colony formation assay" in place of "clone formation assay."
Experimental design: The experimental design has been sufficient to address the question of how NEDD4L impacts proliferation of lung adenocarcinoma cells. Within that scope, however, it does not provide evidence for decrease in the protein levels of Notch2 and/or its downstream molecules within the mouse tumors (for example: IHC of tumors with Notch2 Ab and NEDD4L).

Now, in terms of addressing the main question of how NEDD4L downregulation results in tumor progression via Notch2, the authors miss the point that tumor proliferation is only one facet of cancer advancement. Invasiveness, metastasis, stemness, etc., are other important features that define tumor progression.

It is highly recommend that the authors at least show whether impact on Notch2 protein levels by modulating NEDD4L levels causes any change in migratory and/or invasive tendencies of LUAD cells. (ref: ALCAP2 inhibits lung adenocarcinoma cell proliferation, migration and invasion via the ubiquitination of β-catenin by upregulating the E3 ligase NEDD4L; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8324825/).

The authors should also acknowledge in the 'Discussion' section the following:

1. NEDD4L modifies the protein levels of multiple other oncogenic molecules in lung adenocarcinoma and the effect on proliferation shown in the manuscript here to be via Notch2 downregulation is not the only mechanism. For example, PI3K/Akt pathway is also activated by Notch2 to increase proliferation of lung adenocarcinoma (ref: NEDD4L-induced ubiquitination mediating UBE2T degradation inhibits progression of lung adenocarcinoma via PI3K-AKT signaling; https://cancerci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12935-021-02341-9).

2. Since the authors have shown that NEDD4L expression is inversely correlated with stage of tumor, it is advisable to discuss the relevance of conducting future studies with different forms of mutated EGFR (commonly found in advanced LUAD patients) and checking whether upregulation of NEDD4L will be helpful in a certain subset of such patients (ref: Downregulation of NEDD4L by EGFR signaling promotes the development of lung adenocarcinoma; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12967-022-03247-4).
Validity of the findings: 'no comment'
Additional comments: 'no comment'


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

Input:
Title: DOWN-REGULATED NEDD4L FACILITATES TUMOR PROGRESSION THROUGH ACTIVATING NOTCH SIGNALING IN LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript the authors compare the expression of NEDD4L between normal and tumor tissues and find that the protein is downregulated in tumor samples. Using various in vitro and in vivo assays they demonstrate that NEDD4L regulates proliferation and tumor progression via notch pathway.
I have several major and minor concerns that need to be addressed.
1. I would strongly recommend a immunohistochemical or immunocytochemical analysis of the involved proteins in cell lines or the primary tissues. As localization of proteins involved in notch pathway is critical for its location, the information is highly desirable.
2. Mention how far the normal tissue was from the tumor part.
3. What does 5/28 in line 169 signify?
4. Did the authors observe any correlation between levels of NEDD4l and morphology or proliferation rates in the cell lines?
5. The figures 3B and 2D need to be quantified.
6. In the results, briefly explain how to interpret the assay and results in Figure 3D.
7. In Figure 4, did they wrongly write NICD as NICH?
8. As PEERJ is an online journal, would it make sense to have color graphs which make it easier for the reader to distinguish between lines?
9. English language and grammar needs to be revised throughout the manuscript.
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: NA


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: DOWN-REGULATED NEDD4L FACILITATES TUMOR PROGRESSION THROUGH ACTIVATING NOTCH SIGNALING IN LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed most of the comments raised by the 3 independent reviewers - but not all. Some of the more critical issues have been properly addressed, such as adding critical points to the introduction, explaining the background of NEDD4L biology, and references have been added to track this previous research properly.

Some additional experimental work suggested by the reviewers has been accomplished, such as IF stainings, and added to the supplemental data.

I also understand that the authors did not further investigate some of the doubtless interesting aspects, such as an impact of NEDD4L over/underexpression on tumour cell invasiveness, motiltiy, stemness chaacteristics etc., as the current manuscript is already voluminous enough and sufficient.

However, other comments of the 3 reviewers have been simply discussed away. In some of these issues, I consider the responses as not sufficient but do not want to further meddle with the publication process.

This is understandable, and I believe the manuscript as such has still strongly improved after implementing the changes the authors decided to add.
Experimental design: There have not been too many comments by the 3 reviewers regarding the experimental procedures described, and the corresponding results. I personally think the results are fine, a large-enough spectrum of different methods has been used, and the results are described in the form of clear figures.
Validity of the findings: The observed effects on NOTCH1 and particularly 2 expressions are still not very high and may be borderline significant, which I consider the main flaw in this entire manuscript. But from our own experience, I can confirm that expression levels of these genes, and also downstream targets, often do not change dramatically while phenotypic effects are still observed.
Additional comments: there are still a number of typos, and formatting artifacts, that need to be fixed before this can be published. There are also some occasions where words are not properly separated, possibly formatting between different programs. But these things can be fixed in production.


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: DOWN-REGULATED NEDD4L FACILITATES TUMOR PROGRESSION THROUGH ACTIVATING NOTCH SIGNALING IN LUNG ADENOCARCINOMA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed my concerns satisfactorily.
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: NA


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECTS OF ISOMETRIC HAND GRIP FORCE ON WRIST KINEMATICS AND FOREARM MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING RADIAL AND ULNAR WRIST JOINT PERTURBATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper describes a study on the effects of hand grip force on the kinematic and EMG responses to perturbations of wrist posture into ulnar and radial deviation. Not surprisingly the results show decreasing wrist angular displacement and displacement velocity and higher EMG amplitudes with increasing grip force.
I miss a clear rationale for the study. The introduction sketches a practical rationale related to musculoskeletal loading and injury, which is not clearly related to the experimental tasks and conditions. The authors state that continuous muscular activation above 1-5% of maximal could be a cause of injury. First of all, I would like to comment that the reference provided does not provide solid evidence to support this, but more importantly I do not see how this is related to the effect of perturbations and their dependence on grip force. The authors state that understanding the effect of perturbations on task performance and injury risk is critical, but it is unclear why and neither of these outcomes are investigated. The aim should most likely be limited to adding incremental knowledge on wrist joint stiffness in line with predictions that can be made on theoretical and empirical grounds. This would allow shortening the introduction substantially and make it more to the point.

Specific comments
Line 46: “are increasing” should be “is increasing”
Line 65: “surrogate of wrist stiffness” Co-contraction is a determinant of stiffness, but it seems odd to see it as a surrogate.
Line 82: 84: This does not follow logically from the text above. In addition, how does this experiment help us to “understand optimal joint stiffness for task performance and injury mitigation”?
Line 86: Co-contraction can be used to increase joint stiffness in anticipation of a perturbation. Increasing stiffness in response to a perturbation does not make sense.
Results section: It would be good to sow some of the raw kinematic and EMG data.
Line 278: What is “meaningful”?
Line 283: “A decrease in angular displacement due to greater muscle activity when resisting an ulnar perturbation could suggest that the extensor muscles produce more force in all grip conditions as compared to flexor muscles”. This is unclear to me.
Lines 288-290: “In addition, the greater angular displacement following radial perturbations compared to ulnar perturbations is in line with greater cocontraction of FCU/ECU during a radial perturbation compared to FCR/ECR.” Again, this is unclear to me.
Line 300: Why would a larger displacement entail a higher injury risk. This can be the case but the opposite could also be true.
Lines 320 a.f. Why would a lower grip force reduce attention to the perturbation? I would expect the opposite from the perspective of resource competition.
Line 352: How is continuous exertion related to perturbation responses?
Lines 359-360: If I’m not mistaken there was no significant interaction between time window and grip force so this conclusion would be flawed.
Experimental design: Overall, the experiment appears carefully performed and it is for the major part clearly reported. I do have some concerns with respect to the experimental design, data analysis and interpretation which are given below.
Lines 149-151: The biceps brachii and brachioradialis muscles are not commonly seen as forearm muscles and neither of these spans the wrist joint. It is unclear to me why these muscles were included.
Line 160: Was there only a single repetition for the MVC measurements for each muscle? This would be a limitation both regarding the statistical precision and validity of the normalized EMG amplitudes.
Line 166: Similarly, the use of just two repetitions to determine maximal grip force is a limitation.
Line 181 a.f. Were participants instructed to resist the perturbation or to let it happen? How long before the perturbation did they receive a warning? Why was perturbation direction revealed?
Lines 196-211: The order of processing steps is unclear. It would be to describe data acquisition and processing steps in the order in which they were performed. This also holds for the kinematic data.  I assume that EMG data were rectified before low-pass filtering. Importantly, the 3Hz low-pass filter is at odds with the time windows to analyze pre-activation, and short and long-latency reflexes. If one wants to separate these time windows a high temporal resolution so high cut-off frequency is indicated.
Validity of the findings: The EMG findings have limited precision and validity in view of the concerns raised above.
Additional comments: n.a.


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECTS OF ISOMETRIC HAND GRIP FORCE ON WRIST KINEMATICS AND FOREARM MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING RADIAL AND ULNAR WRIST JOINT PERTURBATIONS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Well written article, content is logically organized, hypotheses stated, and literature referenced appropriately.
Experimental design: Well conceived experimental design, nice example of attempt to measure EMG activity from a large set of forearm muscles.
Validity of the findings: The findings are mostly valid, however there is one statement about "increasing grip force beyond 50% of maximum does not substantially reduce angular displacement about the wrist joint." which is actually contradicted by the data presented by the authors.
Additional comments: This is an interesting and well written paper about the effects of grip force on wrist kinematics and activity of forearm muscles during perturbations of the wrist joint in radial-ulnar deviation.

I only have one major concern, which is the point of "diminishing returns" in the effect of grip force on the reduction in the amplitude and timing of the perturbations. The observations provided by the authors here do not seem to be supported by their data nor analysis (Fig. 2, Fig. 3). I would suggest the authors to remove such a statement from the abstract, and probably rephrase the paragraph in lines 274-279 (and 354) or, in alternative, provide quantitative support for this claim.

Minor comments:
line 124 - please indicate if the height/weight/age figures are mean +- st. deviation, s.e.m., or c.i.?
line 155 - please fix reference to textbook
line 157 - is the input impedance 10 GΩ?
line 168 - how was the custom instrumented handle calibrated to detect a measurement in newtons? I understand that all magnitudes are referred in terms of the MVC, but the authors hint to error bars extending +- 1.5 N around the target grip force value
line 207 - how are decent changes defined? is it the percent change between two consecutive measurements? which order, and normalized how?
lines 214-220 - is the statistical analysis run on the average measurement collected from each individual per each condition, or including all repetitions? the dataset seem to only use one measurement per subject per condition. please specify what method is used and why. also - please specify if the mixed model is estimating a subject-specific intercept as random effect (only), or more subject specific terms
line 231 and below - please specify which outcome is used at the beginning of each paragraph, so it's clear if the effect - say - of grip force is on AD, TPD, or others
line 244 - unclear what a "great" percent change score is


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECTS OF ISOMETRIC HAND GRIP FORCE ON WRIST KINEMATICS AND FOREARM MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING RADIAL AND ULNAR WRIST JOINT PERTURBATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Well written article, content is logically organized, hypotheses stated, and literature referenced appropriately.
Experimental design: Well conceived experimental design, nice example of attempt to measure EMG activity from a large set of forearm muscles.
Validity of the findings: Findings are valid
Additional comments: Just some minor comments to improve the clarity.

Abstract: you say that there was an increase in muscle activity with higher grip forces across all muscles.
Please specify whether this applies pre-, post-perturbation, and at which time instants post-perturbations (previous sentence in the abstract introduces quantification of EMG at multiple timepoints).

Methods: How different did the grip force trial need to be to warrant collection of a third trial? I would assume that two repeated measurements of grip force are *always* different provided that the sensor has sufficient resolution.


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

Input:
Title: THE EFFECTS OF ISOMETRIC HAND GRIP FORCE ON WRIST KINEMATICS AND FOREARM MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING RADIAL AND ULNAR WRIST JOINT PERTURBATIONS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is clearly written.  The changes based on previous reviewer comments were well done generally.
Experimental design: Biases due to forearm position should be addressed - were there inherent biases due to setup?  Ie. Mid-prone (thumb up) may bias radial deviators.  Wrist posture and RU deviation may limit stiffness via different rOMs.
Validity of the findings: There was a question of using a 3Hz linear envelope.  The authors chose not to re-analyze the data but simply change the name of the variables. Renaming variables does not alter the implicit construct of the meaning of the timing.  If solely discussing these timings with respect to reflex loops and long vs short latency windows, then this is a poor choice as  the 3 Hz LPF is not approriate.  However, I believe the authors' effort is to address stiffness which would be dependent on muscle force - which in turn is related to a 3Hz (or actually lower Fc).  My suggestion is to embrace the timing of muscle force rather than reflex timing.

The big concern for me in the discussion of finding is that the thumb muscles were not addressed - in particular EPL and EPB - which act often as wrist deviators and extensors - I believe particularly so in this posture.  At a minimum, this should be addressed.

The added raw data figure should have actual converted units rather than just volts. Using volts does not allow the reader to appreciate your force consistency - that is, how much variability is present.
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: DOES WHO I AM AND WHAT I FEEL DETERMINE WHAT I SEE (OR SAY)? A META-ANALYTIC SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF REAL AND PERCEIVED BODILY STATE ON SPATIAL PERCEPTION OF THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper meets these standards.
Experimental design: The experimental design relates to inclusion and exclusion of studies included in the meta-analysis.  It seems that they choose to include non-peer-reviewed papers but did not justify or even comment on this aspect of their decision.  Furthermore, there are many studies that were excluded, again without justification.

In addition, the authors sub-divided the studies along category lines but provided no theoretical explanation for these divisions.  Given that these sub-divisions were central to the entire paper, this is a serious limitation to the research.

Thus, I do not believe experimental design standards were met.
Validity of the findings: Had the meta-analysis been more complete and the categories been justified, the validity of the findings met standards.  This was a strength of the article but ultimately was insufficient due to the points raised above.
Additional comments: The authors conducted a meta-analysis on various studies exploring whether bodily states influence spatial perception.  They found high levels of bias and low levels of evidence.  They conclude that more reliable measures are needed.

One thing I liked about the paper was the attempt to draw generalizations across a wide range of studies.  I also appreciate the amount of work that was put in to gather all the studies and analyze data across them.  One major concern was that I was unconvinced by how they sub-divided the studies.  The categories were vague and lacked precise definitions, and the authors offered no theoretical motivation for these sub-categories.  The sub-categories were also not part of the pre-registration.  The categories were numerous, thus leading to small numbers of studies within some of the categories, making it hard to achieve reliable generalizable conclusions.
I was also left wondering why so many studies were excluded from the meta-analysis.  For instance, there were many studies on distance-on-hills effect (e.g. Stefanucci et al., 2005) that were not included.  The authors included on study on skill (Taylor et al., 2011) but not many others on sports-related skill such as related to softball players (Gray, 2013; Witt & Proffitt, 2005).

My recommendation is to reject the paper.  That said, I would encourage the authors to continue with this work but do so in a way that is more theoretically driven (specifically as it relates to subdividing the categories but also with respect to how they define and consider bias) and more inclusive of the full literature.

Major concerns:
•	The tactic taken by the authors was to group small sets of studies together based on their classifications of the study parameters and make conclusions about the presence of an effect.  A major concern is the vagueness by which action-related concepts were defined.
•	For example, how long must a person engage in a strenuous activity for fatigue to be manipulated?  How is fatigue defined?  Muscle-fatigue?  Feelings of fatigue?  How does one discriminate between fatigue and warming-up the muscles?  Some of the descriptions of fatigue manipulations sound more like what I would do to warm up and prepare for a fatiguing work-out than manipulations of fatigue itself.
•	As another example, what should count as “fitness”?  How does hip-to-width ratio count?  Should self-rated fitness be grouped with other metrics of fitness?  Should skills (as in parkour) be counted as fitness?  I appreciated the brief discussion of nuance with respect to this topic.
•	If the literature is rife with low-powered studies and publication bias (as seems to be the case for much of psychology!), what value is there for a meta-analysis?
•	Determining how to sub-divide the categories is a challenging, and theoretically interesting, task.  The authors offered no theoretical reason for the divisions they selected, and these divisions were different than the ones they had pre-registered (e.g. virtual vs non-virtual manipulations).  I wonder if the researchers can use a more data-driven approach.  Perhaps some kind of PCA could be interesting.
•	External Load: Wasn’t this already addressed in the Molto paper?  What is added here?  Were any additional studies added?  Were any excluded?
•	I am surprised they used studies from non peer-review journal publications (dissertations, conference proceedings).  At least, they should indicate which are which when discussing each.
•	I found they used “bias” to refer to bias related to the study design (e.g. they refer to sampling bias as the use of convenience sampling) and to bias that could drive systematic results (such as response bias), and this was confusing.
•	There were instances for which they argued certain variables should be controlled for (like stress and mood), but they did not provide any evidence that these variables are relevant.  It is therefore misleading to tell people to control for them without engaging in more critical thought of the impact of doing such analysis.  As a concrete example, some researchers may take the authors’ recommendations as meaning that they should re-analyze their data and include these covariates, but this inflates the chance of a Type I error assuming the researcher is more likely to report only the analyses that resulted in significance (an assumption that has been supported in the literature).


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: DOES WHO I AM AND WHAT I FEEL DETERMINE WHAT I SEE (OR SAY)? A META-ANALYTIC SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF REAL AND PERCEIVED BODILY STATE ON SPATIAL PERCEPTION OF THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The basic goal of a meta-analysis is to provide an overview of the strength of evidence. A weakness of the method (see Friese & Frankenbach, 2020) is that it tends to amplify effects of publication bias and p-hacking). I think this second point might be profitably acknowledged either in the introduction or the conclusion.

Reference
Friese, M., & Frankenbach, J. (2020). p-Hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates. Psychological Methods, 25(4), 456.
Experimental design: Overall, I think the approach taken by the authors is within the bounds of currently accepted practice.  However, in my view, the design of this meta-analysis appears to be subject to confirmation bias problems.  That is, alternative explanations and conflicting findings are not deeply considered. Rather, outcomes are taken at nearly face value.   A study that considers the evidence for one theory and ignores evidence for alternative theories is considered a poor design. But with meta-analysis, there is no convenient way to accomplish this. A meta-analysis is really about replicabilty, but does not address the trickier problem of interpretability. I'm not sure this is correctable, but I don't see that it should be held against the authors. In my view the final word of the initial question in the title could equally be "say" instead of "see."
Validity of the findings: In my opinion, the authors seek to be fairly judicious, but the biased focus on whether there is support for embodied perception (rather than how the support for embodied perception compares with the evidence of conflicting theories, such as knowledge effects, or social effects on compliance with experimental demands) limits the value of this paper.
Additional comments: Overall, I believe that the authors have competently applied the method of meta-analysis to the literature on embodied effects on perception.  If the primary issue in this literature was replication, this would be a very useful approach.  In my view however, the primary problem is interpretation (including the absence of controls). I do not ask that the authors be required to share my views, but I think some comments about the limits of meta-analysis are in order. The authors suggest that future studies must be better about certain forms of bias, but they don't address publication bias at all, which, for some of us appears to be a serious problem with this literature -- a problem which meta-analysis risks amplifying.


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: DOES WHO I AM AND WHAT I FEEL DETERMINE WHAT I SEE (OR SAY)? A META-ANALYTIC SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF REAL AND PERCEIVED BODILY STATE ON SPATIAL PERCEPTION OF THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for the opportunity to review this comprehensive and far-reaching meta-analysis, which investigates the influence of bodily state on spatial perception, under the theoretical banner of the Economy of Action Hypothesis.

The authors have undertaken a large amount of work, presenting their findings extremely clearly, in a structured and thoughtful way.

The categories for analysis were well defined and each aspect discussed in depth, with good use of interim summaries to unpack the broader context.

Many steps were taken to ensure the robustness of the review, including pre-registration via the Open Science Framework, well defined search criteria, the inclusion of a Risk of Bias Assessment and a robust method of extracting data, including in the event of extraction from graphical forms.

Comments for consideration.
Introduction.
General: L49-52. A more comprehensive overview of the theoretical background and placement of the Economy of Action Hypothesis is warranted. This is currently brief, with little context given to the multiple interpretations of embodied theories of perception, enactive approaches and the basis of ecological perception. These theories have individual and environment coupling but have different commitments that can be cached out in the introduction to demonstrate EoA differences and the debate that surrounds cognitive penetration of perception. Inference models of perception could be referenced in general, e.g. Helmholtz; Clark, 2013; Friston, 2013).

L57. Economy of Action may not commit to actively discouraging movement but instead outlines a theory by which appropriate action is taken in line with bodily state (engagement or not; explore/exploit).
L64. This is the first mention of embodied perception, and for clarity should be defined in this context, with reference to the theories mentioned above.

General. L72. An acknowledgement of the key debate raised by firestone and Scholl, with regards to post-perceptual influences could be critiqued further.

L81. A clear and well articulated justification for the present work.

Tables and figures and extremely clear and provide excellent level of detail, relevant to the categories investigated. The supplementary data provided is well organised and thorough.

Minor. L252. rewording suggestion to "Blinding was poorly applied"
L302. Remove Hunt et al, from brackets.
Experimental design: The methodology design is thorough and described in its entirety. The authors present a justified extension to a recently publish review under a complementary topic, filling an important gap in both the impact of bodily capacity and importantly the risk of bias.
The calculation for risk of bias its clear and appropriately deployed.

Each category identified is rigorously investigated, and thoughtful discussions of potential confounders are well articulated at each stage.

Minor. Each interim summary could make more use of the risk of bias in describing the impact of the results found.
Validity of the findings: Although a recent review has been published that outlines a similar investigation: "action effects on visual perception." There is appropriate rationale for the further rigorous investigation undertaken here, contributing to the knowledge around the EoA hypothesis.

The statistical approach is robust and justified. Results are pooled appropriately throughout, and considered independently when necessary.

The conclusion drawn is appropriate, with insightful and well-thought through recommendations for implications and future methodologies.
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: DOES WHO I AM AND WHAT I FEEL DETERMINE WHAT I SEE (OR SAY)? A META-ANALYTIC SYSTEMATIC REVIEW EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF REAL AND PERCEIVED BODILY STATE ON SPATIAL PERCEPTION OF THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed the concerns associated with the span of literature incorporated, ensuring that the context is fully articulated. A clear overview of alternate and competing hypotheses are provided, giving an improved balance to the introduction.
Experimental design: The authors have provided further details on inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as clarifying their sub-grouping process, which deviated from the original proposal.

The addition of risk of bias, confidence and relation to competing theories in the interim summaries is helpful and clear.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I believe that the authors have addressed my concerns, grounding their results more appropriately in the theoretical context. In addition, they have discussed well the importance of accounting for risk of bias in this literature, despite the methodological shortfalls. They have placed these findings well in relation to competing 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: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE AMONG THAIS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES: A MULTICENTER STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.1 Clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout.
There are some flaws in the writing. To be specific:
The tenses in the abstract are used inconsistently. The authors use alternatingly present and past tense for the same time level.

There are some typing errors, e.g.
Line 274:
It must be ‘this point’ instead of ‘thise point’.

Some sentences have a strange grammar, e.g.
Lines 61-63:
‘It has been shown that among Thais living with T2D that each additional unit a patient scores on the diabetes self-care scale (when considered as a 10-point scale) doubles the odds of blood glucose control (Hurst et al., 2020).’.
 Sometimes the references to the literature are given in a confusing manner e.g. . Lines 68-70:
‘Hurst and colleagues Hurst et al. (2020) demonstrated that not only is diabetes management self-efficacy a major mediator of diabetes self-care in terms of controlling blood glucose, but it can even have an additional (direct) effect on blood glucose control.’
The first bracket must be placed before ‘Hurst et al.’.

1.2	Intro & background to show context. Literature well referenced & relevant.
The claim
‘Self-care in those with diabetes has been shown to have two main antecedents, Diabetes Knowledge, the extent to which a patient is informed about the risks, controls and outcomes of their disease, and Diabetes management self-efficacy, the extent to which a patient believes they can manage their condition.’
must be supported by references to literature.
Except for a reference to Bandura the authors do not discuss any psychological models or theories regarding the prediction and explanation of health-related behaviour. Altogether, the authors’ present introduction does not convey the impression that the authors have a deeper understanding of that part of psychology that is relevant for their paper. I recommend the authors to look into ‘Conner M, Norman P: Predicting and Changing Health Behaviour: Research and Practice with Social Cognition Models. Open University Press: Birkshire, England’. This is an excellent and in depth discussion of such models or theories.

1.3	Structure conforms to PeerJ standards, discipline norm, or improved for clarity.
With one exception, the structure conforms to the standards. The exception is the abstract. This should be explicitly structured into background, methodology, results, and conclusions.

1.4	Figures are relevant, high quality, well. Labelled & described.
The information in both figures should be given in tables. The table corresponding to figure 1 could and should also contain descriptive information regarding the items (mean, median etc…). The table corresponding to figure 2 should contain exact numerical information. The left lower triangle of the matrix is not that important. It could be left out.
In any case, the authors should present a table with the items of the GSES and perhaps a table with those of the DMSES.

1.5	Raw data supplied (see PeerJ policy).
In the Mendeley data repository, the search term ‘Hurst, 2021’ yields 211 entries. I leave it to the editorial team to find out whether one of these entries matches.
Experimental design: 2.1	Original primary research within Scope of the journal.
As far as I can judge it, the paper is within the scope of the journal. However, the editorial team can judge this better.
2.2	Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how the research fills an identified knowledge gap.
The research question is not well defined. Different parts of the text give different ideas as to what the research question(s) might be. According to the title, the research questions are to investigate the psychometric properties of the General Self-Efficacy Scale and its relation with patients' disease management self-efficacy. Further parts of the text make clear that the authors operationalise patients' disease management self-efficacy solely with the DMSES and, thereby, factually identify the construct of patients' disease management self-efficacy with the instrument DMSES. In the abstract, the authors state that they examine the reliability and validity of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. When I read the abstract I understood this as a specification of the expression ‘psychometric properties of the General Self-Efficacy Scale’, which the authors use in the title.
The further parts of the paper suggest that the authors do not take the investigation of reliability very serious. In the introduction, they do not use the term ‘reliability’ at all. They only talk about validity. In the methods section they use the term ‘reliability’ again in the sub-chapter ‘Statistical analyses’. They announce that they want to investigate reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. The results section contains a sub-chapter with the title ‘Reliability and structural validity of the General Self-Efficacy scale’. However, the results for Cronbach’s alpha are reported neither in this sub-chapter nor in any other part of the paper. I also do not find any other result in the results section that I can understand as an indicator of reliability. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the discussion, the authors write:
‘In this study we demonstrate the reliability and validity of the GSES in Thais living with diabetes, and explore its psychometric properties.’
This sentence confuses me in several regards. First of all, I am not sure what the authors mean by ‘this study’. If they meant the study reported in the paper to be reviewed, the verb would have to be in past tense. As I cannot image which other study they could mean, I guess that the tense is a linguistic flaw. If it is a linguistic flaw, I am confused about the claim that they have demonstrated reliability. I have not seen that they have demonstrated reliability in the paper. I am also confused because the sentence suggests that the authors seem to understand reliability and validity as something different from psychometric properties. Otherwise, there would be no reason for the second part of the sentence. Counting reliability and validity as something different from psychometric properties contradicts massively to what I have learned in my lessons of test theory. According to these and many different lessons, reliability and validity are the most important psychometric properties. Moreover, it becomes unclear, what the authors mean by psychometric properties if they do not count reliability and validity as psychometric properties.
The concept of validity is treated more extensively in the paper. The authors consider two aspects of validity: 1) an aspect of validity that they refer to interchangeably as construct validity or structural validity and 2) divergent validity. With regard to the first aspect, they investigate whether GSES is one dimensional, with regard to the second whether GSES and DMSES diverge. The authors also refer to a theoretical approach that implies such relationships for self-efficacy (Salsman). With respect to this approach, the investigations proposed by the authors can actually be considered as investigations addressing validity. However, I do not see that these structural features are the most important aspects of general self-efficacy. Many conceptions of general intelligence have the same structural feature, but at least in my opinion, general self-efficacy is not the same as general intelligence. More relevant for judging the validity of GSES are relationships between this measurement instrument and empirical phenomena that can be considered as valid indicators of self-efficacy.
A further research question that, again and again, pops up in the paper is to identify those psychological constructs that should be addressed by interventions in order to finally affect clinical parameters. The authors equate the answer to this question with finding that relationship between GSES and DMSES that I have described in the preceding paragraph. However, equating these two answers makes no sense. The relationship between GSES and DMSES determine neither which of the both variables addressed by theses measurement instruments is easier to affect by an intervention nor which of both variables has the stronger impact on self-management behaviour and on clinical parameters.
Still a further research question regards the relationship between different demographic variables on the one hand and GSES and DMSES. This research question is never explicitly formulated as a research question but pops up, all of a sudden, in the sub-chapter ‘Statistical analyses’ and is treated extensively in the results section. Neither the relationship between the treatment of this research question and the remaining research questions nor the relevance of this research question are made clear.

2.3	Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
The different research questions are treated with quality:
The reliability is actually not at all investigated. At least, the results are not reported. However, if the authors had done what they have announced to do in the methods part, i.e. if they had computed and reported Cronbach’s alpha this would have been standard. However, a test-retest study would be a better approach for assessing reliability.
The authors have investigated those aspects of validity that they have addressed with very sophisticated methods. However, these aspects of validity are not the most important aspects. More important are relationships between the measurement instrument and obvious indicators of the construct to be measured.
The research question as to which variables should best be addressed by interventions is in no way answered.
The relationship between different socio-demographic features as predictors and the two self-efficacy measures as criteria is investigated with a method that seems peculiar to me. Each of the two criterion measures is converted into an ordinal three-category scale, and the relationship is analysed using proportional odds ordinal logistic regression. The author do not report why they apply this approach. In my opinion, this approach does not make much sense. Converting the original scales into three-category scales destroys much information. In my opinion, the most appropriate method would be linear regression. This approach would not only make use of more information and, thereby, provide more valid results, but coefficients of the linear regression can also be better interpreted than coefficients of proportional odds ordinal logistic regression. If the reason for the approach chosen by the authors should be concerns regarding heteroscedasticity, I would take weighted least squares.

2.4	Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
By and large, the methods are sufficiently described. However, some explanations regarding proportional odds ordinal logistic regression would have been useful.
Validity of the findings: 3.1	Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
I do not understand the meaning of this point.

3.2	All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
I cannot judge this. Even if I had access to the data, I could not do this. Moreover, I wonder what the editors mean by statistically sound data.

3.3	Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
Due to the confusion caused in the preceding parts of the paper, the conclusions are also confusing.
Additional comments: The paper might become acceptable with following modifications:
1) A psychologically more professional treatment of the construct of self-efficacy in the introduction
2) Addition of the results regarding reliability
3) Integration of the investigation of the relationship between the instruments and socio-demopgraphic variables in the investigation of the validity or, if the authors do not know how to this, omission of the investigation of the relationships with the socio-demographic variables.
4) Changing the title into 'Reliability and validty of the General Self-Efficacy Scale among Thais with Type 2 diabetes: A multicenter study’


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

Input:
Title: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE AMONG THAIS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES: A MULTICENTER STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The manuscript “flows”. It is easy to read smoothly from beginning to end with clear connections between ideas. It’s clear and easy to follow. Readers can move easily from one major idea to the next without confusing jumps in the Authors’ train of thought.

2. The Authors conducted a thorough literature review referencing the relevant authors of original concepts, prior studies, including a variety of sources from the last years.

3. Tables and figures are appropriately designed. All relevant statistics are included.
Table 1: repeat row header across other pages

4. All results relevant to the hypothesis.
Experimental design: 1. The research is novel and a good addition to the evidence base, addressing a gap in the literature.

2. The submission clearly define the research question.
Investigating the psychometric properties of the translated psychological tools is relevant and meaningful for avoiding the development of artefacts based on studies using inadequately prepared tools.
The Authors identified the knowledge gap and investigated the relationships between more general self-efficacy and diabetes-specific self-efficacy. The idea to separate these constructs is interesting and contribute to the knowledge about important issues for patient self-management skills.

3. No ethical concerns.
The Researchers got permission to use the original tool from Professor Schwarzer and received written informed consents from patients prior to participation.

4. More information about basic psychometric properties of the original version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale and the Thai version of DMSES should be provided (e.g reliability - Cronbach’s alpha)
Validity of the findings: 1. The rationale of this study is clearly described.

2. The statistical analysis are adequate, clearly explained and presented.
I have one comment. The Authors stated in the Statistical analysis section that: "Internal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha...". However, information about the value of Cronbach's alpha was not provided in the Results section.

3. Conclusions are clearly stated. The authors referred to the aims and hypothesis. Discussion is relevant and coherent with the results.
Additional comments: In general, the paper is very well written. Basically, the only thing missing is the value of Cronbach's alpha.