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: PREVALENCE AND RICHNESS OF MALARIA AND MALARIA-LIKE PARASITES IN WILD BIRDS FROM DIFFERENT BIOMES IN SOUTH AMERICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written.

Line 58: I recommend replacing “strategies” with “response”.
Line 65: include a comma after dynamics and delete “and”.
Lines 88-89: include a comma after Palmas. Please, include geographic coordinates information about study sites, both in Brazil and Venezuela.
Line 117: I believe that the authors would like to say “1.5%”, please, check along with the text.
Lines 121-129: Please, check the space between numbers and scale. For example “20sec” or “20 sec”, “68°C” or “68 °C”. Check along the text and standardize. Please, explain the abbreviation “cytb”, and check how it is written along with the text.
Line 144: Why do the authors mean by “pub- listed”?
Line 161: I recommend including “Plasmodium/Haemoproteus” before overall.
Line 165: Say “We observed that the birds from …”
Line 178: check the spell of lineages
Line 190: delete “the Brazilian”
Line 195-196: include “that” after indicate. Include “and” after generalists.

Figure 1: I recommend including that the Cerrado is in Brazil and that the Aride Zone is in Venezuela.
Figure 2: Please, include which South American biomes are being studied.

Tables 1-4: Use the same spelling of “z-value” and “p-value” in the table title and in the table. I also believe that tables 1-3 can be merged into one.

Supplementary tables: Maybe these tables can be merged into one. Additionally, it would be interesting to have GenBank accession numbers on it, the lineage that was found, and if they were infected by Plasmodium or Haemoproteus.
Experimental design: The manuscript “Prevalence and richness of haemosporidians in wild birds from different biomes in South America” is well written and presents interesting data about the diversity of parasite lineages in the studied places. However, I miss several information and discussions that I feel would bring more interesting discussions to this manuscript.

First, were these samples collected and processed exclusively for this study? In lines 88-92 I had the impression that the samples mentioned in the present study were collected, processed, and published before. If that’s the case, then I don’t see the point of showing sections such as DNA extraction, screening, cytochrome b amplification and sequencing, and phylogenetic analysis.

Second, the authors are dealing with haemosporidian parasites, widely studied by several research groups all over the world. In order to standardize the name of lineages (haplotypes) and to keep all data about the host and distribution of these lineages, and haemosporidian database was created MalAvi, which I’m pretty sure the authors know about it. However, the authors decided to amplify a DNA fragment that does not completely overlaps the fragment used in MalAvi. Using this fragment would allow us to determine which parasite lineages (and even species) were found in both studied biomes? Said that, why did the authors decide to use a different fragment for this study?

Third, this manuscript does not show any phylogenetic results or description of parasite lineage, the authors only compare sequences to know which of them were similar. Due to that, I would suggest editing the title of the subsection “Phylogenetic analysis” or even deleting it.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Lines 29-31: I suggest including the importance of bird species diversity as one of the important factors that interfere in parasite diversity.

Line 55: Culicidae is responsible for the transmission of Plasmodium only. Haemoproteus are transmitted by Ceratopogonia and Hippoboscidae. Leucocytozoon is transmitted by Ceratopogonidae and Simuliidae. Please, include this information.

Line 67: Sometimes the authors refer to “Venezuelan Arid Zone”, others as “arid zone”, “Arid Zone”, and “arid region of Venezuela”. Please, standardize the way it is written.

Line 70: IUCN does not use the term “highly threatened” in its classification. Maybe “Critically Endangered” would be more appropriate. Please, check the species that have such classifications and replace it with the correct term.

Lines 72-80: Authors mentioned the diversity of bird species, endemic bird species, and that some of them are threatened with extinction for the Brazilian Cerrado. I recommend including this information about Venezuelan Arid Zone.

Lines 98-100: Is there any official approval for the study in Venezuela. If yes, please include the numbers.

Lines 103-107: Authors are always talking about the Cerrado, and after that about the Arid Zone. I recommend continuing with this sequence along with the text. Please, review this paragraph. The same applies to the figure 1 legend.

Line 115: please, check the extra space at the end of the line.

Lines 178-179: I believe that “Ven” and “Toc” refer to the lineages found in Venezuela and Tocantins, respectively. Please, include this information in the manuscript, because when you say “Ven7-Toc14” it seems that this is only one lineage.


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: PREVALENCE AND RICHNESS OF MALARIA AND MALARIA-LIKE PARASITES IN WILD BIRDS FROM DIFFERENT BIOMES IN SOUTH AMERICA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Most suggestions have been included in the manuscript, which in my opinion almost passes the criteria. It is in general clearly written but there are some typos and inconsistencies left (for example regarding capital letters at the beginning of words), that could be corrected after a thorough reading. I am not a native English speaker, so I probably missed some, but here are a few suggestions:

L. 76: “using previously published data”

L. 84: “in northern Venezuela” or “in the North of Venezuela”

L. 99-100: “using previously published data, as detailed below”

L. 103: “State Parks (Belo et al., 2011);”

L. 108-110: I suggest removing this sentence, as sequence comparison was also described in Belo et al 2011 and Belo et al 2012, in a clearer way (“Sequences were compared for identification to their closest matches in GenBank using the NCBI nucleotide Blast search, and to unpublished sequences using a local blast search in the laboratory of R. E. Ricklefs.”).

L. 110-112: Rephrasing suggestion: “Data collection and molecular analyses were detailed in Belo et al. 2011 and Belo et al., 2012.”

L. 123: maybe “assess” instead of “access”

L. 126: “generalized linear model” (either remove capital letters here or add them in L. 116 “Generalized Linear Mixed Models”)

L. 137: “haemosporidian”

L. 152: “observed”

L. 153: “lineages”

L. 216: especially

Finally, I disagree with responses regarding the plots. As seasons and locality are used in GLMMs as fixed and random variables respectively, it seems relevant to illustrate which part of the intra-biome variability can be attributed to these variables. Adding the means per biome to such plot would do the same job than only showing simple barplots. However, I will not insist if authors disagree.

I do not understand why error bars were removed from the plots. If the authors do not want to illustrate prevalence per locality, it would at least be nice to have error bars showing standard deviation.
Experimental design: L. 129: I’m sorry I missed it during my first review, but please explain how you obtained p-values of the variables in the GLM(M)s.
Validity of the findings: OK
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: ASSOCIATION OF MULTIPLE TUMOR MARKERS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED GASTRIC CANCER PATIENTS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The language of this manuscript is substandard. Grammatical errors severely compromised readability and lack of coherence made the manuscript hard to follow.

Figure and table legends failed to provide enough information for readers to interpret what they see. Figures and tables are poorly designed. Y-axis in figures comes with no labels and no indication of significance is shown in histograms.

Unsubstantiated and odd statements scatter in the manuscript. Examples are lines 62-65, “Most literature is used to determine the appropriate detection threshold through the ROC curve, although the results can significantly improve the sensitivity to detect gastric cancer, but the screening efficiency is reduced, healthy people have a higher chance of testing false positive”; lines 117-119 “The data distribution of tumor markers was shown in Table 1 and Fig 2. And was seriously skewed and cannot be quantitatively analyzed through data transformation or processing”; and similarly, lines 249-250 "According to the clinical test results of tumor markers, the data are seriously skewed and cannot be quantitatively analyzed through data transformation or processing.

The manuscript claims to “report the establishment of a reference interval for eight individual healthy people biomarkers” (lines 65-70). However, there is no information about how these reference intervals are established nor what the intervals are.
Experimental design: The authors have not clearly described their experimental design. It seems that this is a stratified case-cohort study, but it is confusing to read in the manuscript that this is a “phase I” clinical study (line 69).

Figure 1 is supposed to be a summary of subject selection. In the flowchart, the authors presented that after “screening outpatients who have not received any treatment for gastric cancer (N=293)” from the 827 patients who were newly diagnosed with gastric cancer, “534 persons did not participate”. It is very confusing because this implies that 534 newly diagnosed gastric cancer patients have already received treatment for gastric cancer. It doesn't make logical sense.

The authors provided little baseline information about the control group. Does the control group consists of only healthy individuals, or does it also includes individuals with no gastric cancer but have similar symptoms? Neglecting to include these patients might falsely inflate the performance of the test.

The authors have not explained how they determined sample size to reach adequate statistical power.

To establish a diagnostic tool with a “combination” of serum markers, the authors shall generate a regression model with the markers of interest, construct a ROC curve and calculate the AUC based on the predicted probabilities. Simply adding numbers up as shown in table 5 does not yield a clinically meaningful combination.

Finally, If such a diagnostic tool involving a "combination" of serum markers exists, the authors neglected to evaluate the utility of this tool based on the prevalence of gastric cancer.
Validity of the findings: The correlation between gastric cancer and multiple tumor markers in the manuscript has been extensively studied. I could not see the rationale for this replication here.

Feng, Fan, et al. "Diagnostic and prognostic value of CEA, CA19–9, AFP and CA125 for early gastric cancer." BMC cancer 17.1 (2017): 1-6.
Yin, Li-Kui, Xue-Qing Sun, and Dong-Zhen Mou. "Value of combined detection of serum CEA, CA72-4, CA19-9 and TSGF in the diagnosis of gastric cancer." Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 16.9 (2015): 3867-3870.
He, Chao-Zhu, et al. "Combined use of AFP, CEA, CA125 and CAl9-9 improves the sensitivity for the diagnosis of gastric cancer." BMC gastroenterology 13.1 (2013): 1-5.
Additional comments: None


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: ASSOCIATION OF MULTIPLE TUMOR MARKERS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED GASTRIC CANCER PATIENTS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Li et.al., did a good job providing background information and as well as context for the study but the background needs to be further improved to bring more clarity for the readers. Few instances below:

1. Li et.al., needs to provide sufficient context and rationale as to why these biomarkers were included (and if some were considered and excluded) for gastric cancer study.
2. Li et.al., should provide clarity on what exactly they mean by reference value and reference interval in the introduction section.
3. Li et.al., should further improve the English language to make it amenable for international audience to understand the work (e.g., Line 59 "It is common practice in clinical practice" should be replaced to "It is common practice in clinic"). There are random capitalization throughout the document which needs to be corrected (e.g., Capital M in "Most" on line 62)
Experimental design: Li et.al., did a good job with the data analysis and tried it answer the key question if there is a correlation between multiple tumor biomarkers with newly diagnosed gastric cancer and concluded that gastric cancer is associated with AFP, CEA, CA125, CA199 and CA242. However more context needs to be provided to make the case

1. Li.et.al., needs to explain in the method what was the cut-off value used to define a positive tumor biomarker
2. Li.et.al., needs to explain in the method when was the sample collected preoperative or postoperative and if it has any impact on the outcome
Validity of the findings: Li et. al., have shown through statistically analysis that the serum biomarkers are correlated to age, gender of newly diagnosed gastric cancer. Some improvement in text might be helpful for more clarity. For example:

1. Gastric cancer is used repeatedly in the text instead of newly diagnosed gastric cancer. Either such statements should be clarified early on (e.g., Newly diagnosed gastric cancer hereon will be referred to gastric cancer)
2. Flowchart needs more clarity. Readers may find the process chart confusing. It would be helpful to clarify it a little bit (e.g., 2250 persons didn't participate due to XXXX instead of "2250 persons didn't participate). Similarly "Only newly diagnosed patients were selected" instead of screening out newly diagnosed patients with gastric cancer (n=827)
3. Y axis on Figure 2 and Figure 3 needs to be specified.
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: ASSOCIATION OF MULTIPLE TUMOR MARKERS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED GASTRIC CANCER PATIENTS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all my concerns. I would recommend it for publication on 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: ASSOCIATION OF MULTIPLE TUMOR MARKERS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED GASTRIC CANCER PATIENTS: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: No Comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all the comments appropriately.


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: GROWTH OF LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES RE-INTRODUCED INTO SAGEHEN CREEK, CA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: PeerJ review
Growth of Lahontan cutthroat trout from multiple sources re-introduced into Sagehen Creek, CA (#59331)
The cutthroat trout of the western United States face an uncertain future due to the impacts of habitat fragmentation and degradation, the introduction of non-native salmonids and climate change. Lahontan cutthroat trout have been extirpated from >90 % of their historic fluvial habitat and 99% of their historic lacustrine habitat. The authors of this paper do not convey to the reader the rich history of this subspecies, and therefore the significance of their results is hard to judge given the lack of a larger context. They also do not do justice to the life history variation and challenges of recovery of this ESA listed subspecies. In my opinion, the introduction should be completely rewritten, to include some of the hydrological and geological history of the Lahontan hydrographic basin where this fish is found. The pluvial Lake Lahontan of the Pleistocene played a huge role in the evolution of this trout. The large Humboldt River watershed in the eastern portion of Nevada was never inundated by the large lake, which covered most of northwestern Nevada 10,000 years ago. The remaining lacustrine habitat is found in the western portion of the range in the Truckee and Walker watersheds. The lacustrine and fluvial forms of this fish differ in growth and phenotype (lake fish have more pyloric caeca and greater number of gill rakers) and they use both life history variants in this study. The authors give no history of the hatchery stocks they use in this study. The Independence Lake strain (a high elevation oligotrophic lake) has remained intact never having been extirpated. The Pilot Peak strain has a very interesting history. The Lahontan cutthroat trout populations in the large lakes in the Truckee River watershed-  Lake Tahoe (oligotrophic) and Pyramid Lake (mesotrophic and endorheic) were extirpated in the 1940s. The Pilot Peak strain (see Peacock et al. 2017) was discovered in a small out-of-basin stream in Utah and identified as a putative historic Pyramid Lake strain by its morphology and then using genetic data shown to have come from the Truckee River watershed likely either Lake Tahoe or Pyramid Lake. This information should be included to set the stage for their study.

Line 28 – this population (Macklin Creek) was planted in these waters sometime in the 20th century and so they are not representative of a population of wild Lahontan cutthroat trout.
Lines 38-39 Include a reference pluvial Lahontan as the fluvial habitat of this fish (e.g., Quinn and Humboldt) is not alkaline and never was. Should not refer to the Great Basin but rather the Lahontan hydrographic basin as Bonneville cutthroat are also in the Great Basin. Should make distinction between fluvial and lacustrine forms. Also this fish was found in oligotrophic habitat as well as alkaline habitat in the same watershed (Truckee River).
The differences among these strains and they are different genetically – may explain their results. Growth rate differs among strains of Lahontan cutthroat trout and in different habitats and among life histories – fluvial vs lacustrine.
Lines 54-55 over simplification and wrong citation –Peacock and Kirchoff 2004 has nothing to do with defining distinct population segments
Line 66 you have to talk about this strain more in depth with its unique history
Line 67 this is vague
Line 95 oversimplification – lack of context
Lines 122-124 these different lineages have been genetically characterized (see Peacock and Kirchoff 2007; Peacock et al. 2017).
Lines 142-144 Where are all of the more current references for this species? Where are Jason Dunham's papers?
Lines 175-176 such as?
Lines 177-178 condition factor? Rates of growth among these fishes may be genetically determined and differ among strains.
Lines 271 need citation here - and Pilot Peak derives from the Truckee River basin - evidence for Lake Tahoe origin as well.
Lines 279-281 how do short term growth rates really inform recovery?
Experimental design: The authors use hatchery fish with different histories and different life histories. This is problematic and the authors need to be clearer about these differences and potential confounding factors.
Validity of the findings: Hard to say much about translocation success with results of 3 months of an in stream experiment. There is so much information left out that for anyone with knowledge of this cutthroat trout species there are many questions. They use both lacustrine and fluvial strains in this study and that in itself is a red flag
Additional comments: PeerJ review
Growth of Lahontan cutthroat trout from multiple sources re-introduced into Sagehen Creek, CA (#59331)
The cutthroat trout of the western United States face an uncertain future due to the impacts of habitat fragmentation and degradation, the introduction of non-native salmonids and climate change. Lahontan cutthroat trout have been extirpated from >90 % of their historic fluvial habitat and 99% of their historic lacustrine habitat. The authors of this paper do not convey to the reader the rich history of this subspecies, and therefore the significance of their results is hard to judge given the lack of a larger context. They also do not do justice to the life history variation and challenges of recovery of this ESA listed subspecies. In my opinion, the introduction should be completely rewritten, to include some of the hydrological and geological history of the Lahontan hydrographic basin where this fish is found. The pluvial Lake Lahontan of the Pleistocene played a huge role in the evolution of this trout. The large Humboldt River watershed in the eastern portion of Nevada was never inundated by the large lake, which covered most of northwestern Nevada 10,000 years ago. The remaining lacustrine habitat is found in the western portion of the range in the Truckee and Walker watersheds. The lacustrine and fluvial forms of this fish differ in growth and phenotype (lake fish have more pyloric caeca and greater number of gill rakers) and they use both life history variants in this study. The authors give no history of the hatchery stocks they use in this study. The Independence Lake strain (a high elevation oligotrophic lake) has remained intact never having been extirpated. The Pilot Peak strain has a very interesting history. The Lahontan cutthroat trout populations in the large lakes in the Truckee River watershed-  Lake Tahoe (oligotrophic) and Pyramid Lake (mesotrophic and endorheic) were extirpated in the 1940s. The Pilot Peak strain (see Peacock et al. 2017) was discovered in a small out-of-basin stream in Utah and identified as a putative historic Pyramid Lake strain by its morphology and then using genetic data shown to have come from the Truckee River watershed likely either Lake Tahoe or Pyramid Lake. This information should be included to set the stage for their study.

Line 28 – this population (Macklin Creek) was planted in these waters sometime in the 20th century and so they are not representative of a population of wild Lahontan cutthroat trout.
Lines 38-39 Include a reference pluvial Lahontan as the fluvial habitat of this fish (e.g., Quinn and Humboldt) is not alkaline and never was. Should not refer to the Great Basin but rather the Lahontan hydrographic basin as Bonneville cutthroat are also in the Great Basin. Should make distinction between fluvial and lacustrine forms. Also this fish was found in oligotrophic habitat as well as alkaline habitat in the same watershed (Truckee River).
The differences among these strains and they are different genetically – may explain their results. Growth rate differs among strains of Lahontan cutthroat trout and in different habitats and among life histories – fluvial vs lacustrine.
Lines 54-55 over simplification and wrong citation –Peacock and Kirchoff 2004 has nothing to do with defining distinct population segments
Line 66 you have to talk about this strain more in depth with its unique history
Line 67 this is vague
Line 95 oversimplification – lack of context
Lines 122-124 these different lineages have been genetically characterized (see Peacock and Kirchoff 2007; Peacock et al. 2017).
Lines 142-144 Where are all of the more current references for this species? Where are Jason Dunham's papers?
Lines 175-176 such as?
Lines 177-178 condition factor? Rates of growth among these fishes may be genetically determined and differ among strains.
Lines 271 need citation here - and Pilot Peak derives from the Truckee River basin - evidence for Lake Tahoe origin as well.
Lines 279-281 how do short term growth rates really inform recovery?


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: GROWTH OF LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES RE-INTRODUCED INTO SAGEHEN CREEK, CA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript meets most aspects listed in the guidelines provided by the journal about writing, structure, figures, tables, raw data shared, self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses (objectives in this case), although some aspects would merit clarifications (see my specific comments below).
Experimental design: The research question is well defined, relevant and meaningful, and identify how the study fills an identified knowledge gap, but is of a limited scope.

The fact that fish density stocked in experimental reaches differed among strains is a major shortcoming because the levels of intra- and interspecific competition were not controlled in the experiment (see my detailed comment below).
Validity of the findings: The impact and novelty of the study are not assessed as well as the rationale and benefit to literature.

The results of the study are difficult to interpret due to the fact that fish density stocked in experimental reaches differed among strains (see my detailed comment below).
Additional comments: The objective of this study was to compare early-life growth of two hatchery and one wild sources of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout reintroduced into Sagehen Creek, CA, in order to evaluate their potential for re-introduction efforts into small montane headwater streams in California. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout have experienced massive declines in their native range and are now a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act.

The study provides some interesting results but I have concerns regarding the experimental manipulations and design:

1-	Lines 102-120: Fish from the Pilot Peak and Independence Lake sources were netted from hatchery raceways, held in net pens in Sagehen Creek and fed to satiation on commercial trout pellets twice daily for one month prior to experiment initiation. Those from the wild source were collected by electrofishing and hook and line sampling from Austin Meadow Creek, held in net pens for two days prior to initiating the experiment (“because holding wild fish in captivity prior to release may adversely affect their condition”. There is an experimental bias here because the three sources were not captured and acclimated in the same way prior to initiating the experiment. The stress and short acclimation experienced by the wild source should be an issue discussed in the manuscript.

2-	Although this was the case, it is not explicitly mentioned in the Methods section that the three sources were stocked into the same reaches.

3-	Lines 293-295 and Table 1:  The authors were unable to include enough wild Austin Meadow fish because of small sample sizes of the source. This is a major shortcoming because the levels of intra- and interspecific competitions were not controlled in the experimental reaches. It would have been preferable to adjust the density of the Pilot Peak and Independence Lake sources to that of the Wild Austin Meadow to control for these effects (and may be limit the study to fewer reaches).

4-	Lines 126-128: I am surprised that a 1.3 cm mesh hardware cloth that enclosed the upstream and downstream sections of each reach caused little-to-no disturbance in streamflow and drift. From my experience, even a 1.3 cm mesh hardware cloth should clog relatively rapidly with debris from the drift (matter of hours or few days, depending on the stream). More details should be given regarding the mention “Due to effort required to create and maintain 18 temporary fish barriers on a daily basis…” (lines 282-283).

5-	Lines 145-147: The authors mention that they measured habitat characteristics in each study reach including depth, volume, substrate size, canopy shade, density of large woody debris, ….and other habitat features (???)….and temperature data. What they did with these data? All data collection described in a Methods section should be referred to in the Results and Discussion sections.

6-	Lines 154-155: The authors mention “recapture of enclosed fish at the conclusion of the experiment allowed some estimation of tag efficacy”. Again, if presented in the Methods section, this should be referred to in the Results and Discussion sections.

7-	Lines 131-134: “all non-native trout present within the study reaches were removed via multi-pass depletion using a backpack electrofisher; however all native Paiute Sculpin were returned to the stream”. Why only Paiute Sculpin were returned to the stream? What did the authors do with the non-native trout? This should be specified.

8-	Lines 166-167: “We acknowledge growth experiments are a less common approach for managers to assess fish growth performance”. May be in stream but not in lake ecosystems. Many works have documented growth performance of different strains of salmonids after stocking between 1960 and 1990. See for ex. Lachance & Magnan (1990) and references therein.

9-	Lines 181-183: It is not clear to me how comparing the gain (or lost) in length and weight distributions during the experiment allow to assess for potential length-related bias in recapture probabilities.

10-	Lines 185-187: “Mixed effect models are increasingly applied to complex fisheries datasets where pseudoreplication and uneven data structures are common”. This is now well recognized. Not necessary.

11-	Lines 198-201: “Whereas effects of habitat were controlled (to the extent possible) by creating analogous experimental stream reaches, we do not present models that analyze the effect of habitat on growth. However, we did build such models and found they differed little from above; therefore we present simple models for better accessibility”. It would have been preferable to present these models and let the readers judge. The authors should have presented all the models and select the best with a procedure like the Akaike Information Criterion for small sample size (Burnham & Anderson, 2002).

12-	Lines 210-211: The fact that negative growth in weight was common across all treatment groups suggest that the resources were either depleted or insufficient to maintain positive gain in weight at this fish density, and the authors have recognized this in the discussion (lines 286-288). This complicates the interpretation of the data together with the fact that the fish density differed among strains (re. comment #3 above).

13-	Lines 240-241 and: “Independence Lake brood stock may be useful for re-introduction efforts into small montane headwater streams in California like Sagehen Creek”. “may be useful”; this conclusion is rather vague.

14-	In the last part of the discussion, the authors confirm that the scope of their study is rather limited (to Sagehen Creek): lines 306-307: “Finally, we note that our results in Sagehen Creek might simply be different if executed in other streams and ecosystem types”; lines 324-325 “We see a high value in Sagehen Creek specifically in pioneering upland re-establishment strategies for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout”; and lines 329-330: “Re-introduction of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout might be effective in Sagehen Creek if coupled with non-native species management”.

In conclusion, this study required important field efforts and could be of interest for a local audience due to its limited scope. However, it would need an important revision, especially a better discussion of the study's limitations in relation to my main concerns (because nothing can be done at this point to improve the study design). On the other hand, it is clearly a case study and I do not know the PeerJ standards regarding the impact and contribution of manuscripts accepted for publication.

References
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Lachance, S., & Magnan, P. (1990). Performance of domestic, hybrid, and wild strains of brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, after stocking: the impact of intra- and interspecific competition. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 47, 2278–2284.


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: GROWTH OF LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES RE-INTRODUCED INTO SAGEHEN CREEK, CA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: see attached review
Experimental design: see attached review
Validity of the findings: see attached review
Additional comments: see attached review


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

Input:
Title: GROWTH OF LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES RE-INTRODUCED INTO SAGEHEN CREEK, CA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: NOTE : All comments of my review of the revised version will be presented in this section

I have read the responses to the referees' concerns as well as the revised version of the manuscript and I consider that the authors have done a thorough job in revising their manuscript. Most of my concerns have been addressed and the manuscript revised accordingly. Therefore, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted with the following minor revisions:

MAIN POINT
One of my main concerns of the original version was that the study is limited in scope and falls in the category of case studies. The authors have offered a response to this concern in the last part of their rebuttal, which I do not consider satisfactory.

My suggestion would be to start the introduction with a general paragraph that would put the study in a broader context. To this respect, the first very good sentence of the discussion should be moved to the beginning of the introduction and used as a starting point to develop this first paragraph (without reference to the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout).

Then, at the beginning of the discussion, the authors could bridge to this first paragraph of the introduction by mentioning that their study is a good example of the research that should be done to better support/frame conservation reintroductions.

MINOR POINTS

NOTE: Line number refers to the track changes version

Lines 193-195: The explanation offered by the authors in the rebuttal is clearer and more explicit than this sentence of the manuscript: “Thus while acclimation techniques differed between the two primary treatment groups and the Austin Meadow fish, the goal was the same – to treat each group in a manner that minimizes stress.” Please use the explanation presented in the rebuttal to clarify the manuscript.

Lines 221-222: Not clear. Why “but” instead of “and” in this sentence: “All three sources were stocked in the same reaches, "but" densities of each source remained similar across the reaches (Supplementary Dataset 1).” Please clarify.

Lines 322-325: Delete these two sentences. They are not necessary and repeat some aspects of the introduction. Furthermore, the use of “case study” in not necessary through the manuscript. The discussion should start with the text of line 325 “In our study, Independence Lake Lahontan Cutthroat Trout gained more weight and…”, given the suggested change in my main point, above.

Lines 456-458: Delete theses three sentences. This is not the kind of considerations that we find in a scientific paper. The paragraph should start with “We recognize that addition of the Austin Meadow treatment complicated the experimental design, ….”
Experimental design: See my point #1 above
Validity of the findings: See my point #1 above
Additional comments: See my point #1 above


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

Input:
Title: EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOON JELLYFISH AURELIA AURITA (CNIDARIA, SCYPHOZOA): ANOTHER VARIANT ON THE THEME OF INVAGINATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper aims at defining evolutionary pathways based on the development of the early lifre stages of the scyphozoan Aurelia aurita by comparing them with the anthozoan Nematostella vectensis.
To achieve this goal, the authors provide data and images realised with the advanced microscopy techniques which provide a better description compared to the previous available literature (e.g. Berrill 1949) and highlight patterns remained little or not known at all to present.
Overall, the paper is interesting, clear in the aim and supported by data.
Experimental design: appropriate
Validity of the findings: Despite theoverall  quality, the paper is too long in my opinion, so that it ends up being a very long description and the goal to define the difference with Nematostella and anthozoans in general gets lost in the words. Actually, the Discussion appears to be a mixture of Results and Discussion. The Results are already too long and detailed. In my opinion, the authors should make an effort to shorten the whole paper. For example, in the M & M there are two paragraphs at the beginning which do not add anything new, and could therefore be extremely reduced in lenght (please see Detailed comments below). My suggestion to the authors is to be detailed when they highlight  new patterns, but go very fast if these patterns were already observed in previous studies. The conclusons are not conclusive at all, they are just what the authors hope, but they do not synthetize the findings of the study.
Finally, despite the fact that the use of scientific English is overall correct, I have found here and there some flaws (see Detailed Comments below). I could not report them all, but I suggest the authoors to critically revise the paper and pay attention to them.
Additional comments: Deatailed Comments
L26: I think metazoan’s should be metazoans’
L 33: I suggest the authors remove “molecular”: they do not use a molecular approach, so this word is confusing the reader
L64-70: I think here you need to add references, although these topics may be known by a large audience. In particular, I think the classification into Medusozoa may not be known by non-specialist in the field
L 75-77: the authors appear to contradict themselves in this sentence…additionally, I disagree with the statement that Aurelia is difficult to breed in captivity, considered that it is one oof the first and stilli s very coommonly exhibited in public Aquaria because ot is easy to breed in captivity throughout the whole life cycle
L78-79: I disagree with this statement, as Fuchs et al. themselves highlighted in their paper that the role played by retinoic acid during polydisk strobilation is likely only a first step toward the understanding of the moledular signaling behind strobilation and several questions are left open to future research
L86-87: it may be simply my own preference, but I would rephrase: “It may seem that we already know everything about Aurelia early development” because it seems more appropriate to a divulgative text than a rigorous scientific paper
L87-95: the aim of this paper comes out of the blue here…why it is so important to understand the difference(s) of development in Scyphozoa and Anthozoa? Why was Nematostella chosen for the comparison? Here as well as in the background, there is the word “molecular”: the authors should precise that they do not use this approach, because this generates confusion
L109-123: As these aspects were already described, these paragraphs appear redundant to me…in my opinuion, they could be extremely shortebed abd added to the last paragraph
L620: I think “How many ways use cnidarians to invaginate?” should be “How many ways do cnidarians use to invaginate?”


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: EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOON JELLYFISH AURELIA AURITA (CNIDARIA, SCYPHOZOA): ANOTHER VARIANT ON THE THEME OF INVAGINATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript from Kraus et al. describes at the cellular level the developmental stages of the scyphozoan Aurelia aurita from zygote to planula stage, using a combination of light, confocal and electron microscopy. The manuscript is well written and cite the relevant literature. Raw data are shared.
Experimental design: The Authors describe in great details the cellular dynamics during gastrulation and show that the formation of the endodermal layer involves a combination of invagination, EMT and cell rearrangement.
Validity of the findings: The quality of the data is excellent, the figures beautifully composed and the description and discussion of the data comprehensive and insightful. This descriptive work will certainly represent a milestone in scyphozoan embryology.
Additional comments: I would suggest a few corrections before publication:
L25, L64. I would avoid using the term "archetypal" in biology. Could be replaced by “emblematic” for instance.
L32. “occurring during gastrulation” instead of “in the gastrulation”.
L34, 36, 46, 47, 54, 109, 197, as well as the references. Please put species names in italic.
L55-56. The sentence starting with “We clearly show that….” is too generic. You could either detail the observed differences between species or delete this sentence.
L56 “between species” instead of “between the species”.
L103. “might be based on very different cellular mechanisms” this seems an overstatement. Here I would suggest replacing this part by a quick description of the main differences between Nematostella and Aurelia gastrulation.
L109-123. This section does not describe the studied materials or used methods. I would suggest transferring most of it at the beginning of the Results section.
L120. the sentence “and never…. in the ‘gonads" is difficult to read. Please rephrase.
L137. What is the composition and concentration of the “phosphate buffer”.
L330 and L560. It is not mentioned (L330) or discussed (L560) what the blastopore cells become during the final steps of blastopore closure – are they integrated in the endodermal and/or ectodermal layers? Please discuss this matter.
L430. “blastomeres resembling the same during spiral or radial cleavage in high metazoans”. This sentence is confusing should be rephrased or removed. The use of “high metazoans” should be avoided.
L463. Please correct “in the the gastrula”.
L540. “we almost confirmed the data”. Why “almost”? Please explained.
L577. It is mentioned that nerve cells were identified by TEM – but I could not find any mention of this in the Results section or in the figures. Please provide images and describe the presence of nerve cells at the planula stage.
L691. “the cell far from always” – a word is missing here.
Legend of Figure 1. “the blastomeres exhibit packing reminiscent of spiral cleavage”. Here again the parallel with spiral cleavage seems an overstatement. I would suggest deleting it.
Figure 2b. I would suggest coloring the right part of the blastopore also in light blue.


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: EMBRYONIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOON JELLYFISH AURELIA AURITA (CNIDARIA, SCYPHOZOA): ANOTHER VARIANT ON THE THEME OF INVAGINATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

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


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

Input:
Title: MELATONIN INCREASES GROWTH PROPERTIES IN HUMAN DERMAL PAPILLA SPHEROIDS BY ACTIVATING AKT/GSK3Β/Β-CATENIN SIGNALING PATHWAY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is of interest, however, it requires clarifications

METHODOLOGY
DMSO was used as a solvent, per figures legend. What was its concentration.
Please provide this information in the materials and methods.
MT2/1 antagonists, luzindoie was used. Please clarify, when it was added. Prior addition of melatonin? If yeas how many hours before. Note that you use 10-4-10-3 M range for melatonin and 50 uM for luzindole
Results
mM range of melatonin was used. How this relates to MT1 and MT2. For membrane bound receptors nM range would be expected. Is there an issue in the uptake of the ligand into spheroids?
Interpretation
You did not measure hair growth properties, you only measure behavior of DP spheroids. Please correct the title and interpretation
Discussion
Please discuss limitations which are obvious
Mention that skin cells produce melatonin (Slominski A, Pisarchik A, Semak I,  Sweatman T, Wortsman J,  Szczesniewski A, Slugocki G, McNulty J, Kauser S, Tobin DJ, Jing C, Johansson O  (2002) Serotoninergic and melatoninergic systems are fully expressed in human skin. FASEB J 16, 896-898; full text FASEB J (April 23, 2002) 10.1096/fj.0.1-0952fje), which can undergo rapid metabolism) ((Kim TK, Kleszczynski, Janjetovic Z, Sweatman T, Lin Z, Li W, Reiter  R, Fischer T, Slominski AT (2013) Metabolism of melatonin and biological activity of intermediates of melatoninergic pathway in human skin cells. FASEB J 27, 2742–2755: doi: 10.1096/fj.12-224691), issues highly relevant to the subject..
Mention the possibility of indirect action through its metabolite(s) (Exp Dermatol 26:563–568,  doi: 10.1111/exd.13208. PubMed PMID: 27619234)
References

.
Experimental design: DMSO was used as a solvent, per figures legend. What was its concentration.
Please provide this information in the materials and methods.
MT2/1 antagonists, luzindoie was used. Please clarify, when it was added. Prior addition of melatonin? If yeas how many hours before. Note that you use 10-4-10-3 M range for melatonin and 50 uM for luzindole
Results
mM range of melatonin was used. How this relates to MT1 and MT2. For membrane bound receptors nM range would be expected. Is there an issue in the uptake of the ligand into spheroids?
Interpretation
You did not measure hair growth properties, you only measure behavior of DP spheroids. Please correct the title and interpretation
Validity of the findings: See basic reporting
Additional comments: See basic reporting


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: MELATONIN INCREASES GROWTH PROPERTIES IN HUMAN DERMAL PAPILLA SPHEROIDS BY ACTIVATING AKT/GSK3Β/Β-CATENIN SIGNALING PATHWAY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1	The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 327, 424 – the current phrasing makes comprehension difficult. I suggest you have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or contact a professional editing service.
Experimental design: Overall the experiments appear to be well performed
Validity of the findings: This area is of potential interest
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: MELATONIN INCREASES GROWTH PROPERTIES IN HUMAN DERMAL PAPILLA SPHEROIDS BY ACTIVATING AKT/GSK3Β/Β-CATENIN SIGNALING PATHWAY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Now the revised manuscript has been adequately corrected and responded to my comments.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: BAYESIAN ESTIMATION FOR THE MEAN OF DELTA-GAMMA DISTRIBUTIONS WITH APPLICATION TO RAINFALL DATA IN THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript, credible interval (CI) and highest posterior density (HPD) interval for the mean and the difference between the means of the delta-gamma distribution are constructed. For Bayesian method, the Jeffreys’ prior and uniform prior are taken into consideration. Also the CI and HPD intervals are derived based on fiducial quantities. The numerical computation is performed for comparing the efficacy of five proposed methods in terms of their coverage probabilities and expected lengths.
Experimental design: The structure of the manuscript is satisfactory. The paper is logically and technically in standard paper format. The computation part and simulation is reasonable.
Validity of the findings: The results and Tables are clear and acceptable. In general, after some minor revisions, the paper is suitable for acceptance.
Additional comments: I invite the authors to make minor revisions to improve the presentation, the comments are listed below:

	1.      Motivation of the paper needs to be illustrated.

	2.      In equation (8), the last term of the joint posterior density of θ will be exp(-  x_n(1) /(2σ^2 ))                                                                       instead of exp(  x_n(1) /(2σ^2 )). Also the equations (10), (20) and (22) need to be corrected in similar manner.

	3.      Each equation should be ended either with “.” Or with “,”.

	4.       The resolution of all the plots (Figures 1 - 9) needs to be improved. I suggest to produce your graphics in PDF (do not convert it from png, jpeg, … , to pdf).

	5.       The line before equation (17), “Thus, the Fisher information …”, after the word ‘for’, "ϕ” is missing.


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

Input:
Title: BAYESIAN ESTIMATION FOR THE MEAN OF DELTA-GAMMA DISTRIBUTIONS WITH APPLICATION TO RAINFALL DATA IN THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors presented well the methods and provided examples. They also uploaded the data files and the R code.

I have minor comments: In the abstract, discuss in one to two sentences at the start of the paragraph why this research is needed (or state the research question). The methods are acceptable, but I suggest checking the manuscript for typographical errors (especially regarding the English style).
Experimental design: The paper used data from weather stations. The authors uploaded the data files as supplementary information, which is good and highly encouraged. However, I recommend including in the paper a statement that the authors asked permission from the stations to publish and use the data for this research.
Validity of the findings: The methods are acceptable. Results can also be replicated as the authors uploaded the R files, and they provided examples.
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: BAYESIAN ESTIMATION FOR THE MEAN OF DELTA-GAMMA DISTRIBUTIONS WITH APPLICATION TO RAINFALL DATA IN THAILAND
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	In the introduction, rainfall is important enough. The review of rainfall is need more.
Experimental design: 1.	The independent of random sample or random variable is need to declare. It effects to your derivation of the likelihood function.
2.	The description of HPD interval is need to explain more in both lines 89-92 and Algorithm 1.
Validity of the findings: 1.	In the results of simulation for the difference between the means of two delta-gamma distribution, the case of n>m is need to show or explain. Is it similar or difference from n<m.
2.	Rainfall data from Example 1, were obtained by monthly with 50 observations from 1972-2021. Is it monthly?
3.	Why is reason of data collection of Example 2 by January and February from 1976-2021.
4.	The period of observations collections of 3 examples in the part of an empirical application is need to explain of reason in the manuscript.
Additional comments: 1.	The discussion should be separated from the results.
2.	Add the limitation of your study in the discussion.


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

Input:
Title: INTER-SET REST CONFIGURATION EFFECT ON ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED RESPONSES TO A RESISTANCE TRAINING SESSION IN TERRESTRIAL VS SIMULATED HYPOXIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is generally well-written. However, there are a few sections where methods are not clearly explained (highlighted below). Please amend these sections to improve the clarity of this paper.
Experimental design: Congratulations on an interesting study, and on the comprehensive assessments completed. However, I have a few queries on the research design:

Did the authors conduct an a priori sample size calculation? It is possible that this study is limited by statistical power with between group comparisons, as these groups were relatively small (G1=9 and G2=7). Also, this may have accounted for some differences in the responses to NH vs HH (i.e. between-participant differences in how they responded to NH or HH)

I am a little confused with some parts of the manuscript that indicate either two or three barbell exercises were analysed only, when there were six exercises performed during exercise. More clarity is required in the explanations of this throughout.

The emphasis on the resistance training volume seems a little strange to me, considering that participants were instructed to perform 3 sets of 10 reps. If all sets were performed to failure I would understand the logic in this, but it seems that the volume of exercise was somewhat fixed. This may also mean that discussion section from lines 298-310 needs to be amended.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are in accordance with the data. In my opinion, the discussion is well constructed and raises some interesting points (i.e. the rationale for differences between HH and NH are well explained).
Additional comments: •	Line 68-69: the part of this sentence “…although other factors may be involved as well…” is a little vague. Can the authors make this statement more specific to what these factors are?
•	Line 85-86: The term “…being unknown the effects…” is a little confusing. Please re-word this to improve clarity.
•	Line 89-91: The study from Lockhart et al. (which has been cited by the authors at other parts of this paper) compared long vs short rest periods in normobaric hypoxia vs normoxia on acute physiological responses which are relevant to this study. It may be worth mentioning that study here as the only previous one which has examined the effects of different rest periods on these responses during hypoxic resistance exercise.
•	Line 95: the grammar of this sentence should be improved.
•	Line 98: Probably need to be careful referring to “the hypertrophic response” – this study examined acute physiological responses which may be related to muscle growth, but it did not assess the hypertrophic response, per se.
•	Line 103: what is meant by the term “acute muscle performance response”? perhaps this can be re-worded to improve the clarity of this statement.
•	Line 118-119: the section on “the mean of two attempts separated by 15 mins” is a little confusing – was there only 2 attempts to lift 1RM with 15 min rest between them?
•	Line 127: the term “training” is typically used to refer to repeated exercise bouts culminating in an adaptation (i.e. a 6-week training program), whereas “exercise” may be a more appropriate term to describe an acute session (i.e. exercise sessions were conducted….”). Please amend this throughout the manuscript so that the term “training” is not sed to refer to a single acute exercise bout.
•	Line 129-131: I am a little confused about what is meant by the “hypoxic environmental requirement” – Please re-word this to make it clearer.
•	Line 158: please amend “…the load was reduced a 5% as…” to improve grammar.
•	Line 160: I assume these three exercises were the squat, bench press and military press? why were just these three used for between-condition comparisons?
•	Line 163: were participants instructed to lift to failure, or to perform sets of 10 repetitions (as described on line 155)?
•	Line 172: It may be clearer that the HH and NH conditions were somewhat matched if you also include that the high performance facility is 2320 m asl. You could alternatively mention this in line 177.
•	Line 189: may be more correct to call this a “sessional rating of perceived exertion”.
•	Line 198: here the sampling frequency is indicated as 2Hz, but line 191 suggests this at 1Hz (i.e. second-by-second). Please clarify and amend. Also, it is not clear what you mean by “internal memory values”? I assume this is just simply the SmO2 %?
•	Line 236: this refers to 2 barbell exercises, whereas line 0160 refers to three exercises?
•	Line 237: please clarify how the ADJUSTED between group effects were calculated? I found this in the description for Table 1, but it should probably be within the statistical analysis section of the paper.
•	Line 396: another limitation which should be addressed is the between group comparisons of HH vs NH. It is possible that this, along with the relatively small sample size in each group (9 and 7) introduced additional variability into the data.


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

Input:
Title: INTER-SET REST CONFIGURATION EFFECT ON ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED RESPONSES TO A RESISTANCE TRAINING SESSION IN TERRESTRIAL VS SIMULATED HYPOXIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting experiment to examine the possible influences of two different types of hypoxic environments and two different durations of interest resting on heart rate, blood lactate, muscle oxygenation, and delayed RPE. I applaud the authors for their review of the literature in the introduction and discussion. Additionally, the manuscript is written in a professional, unambiguous language. However, there are some organizations to the ideas that may be better portrayed if subsections or gatherings of similar ideas are grouped in each paragraph.

Line 56: The first paragraph provided a clear brief on setting up the interest of the study but then there is a conclusion of the paragraph where the rest intervals are important because of the role in the phenotypic response of resistance training. This does not seem to follow smoothly into the next paragraph, and it would seem almost like an added thought. Since phenotypes are not the interest in this study, I would recommend adding a conclusive sentence to this paragraph to why the authors find the testing of rest intervals is important in regard to what the authors plan to test.

Lines 65 to 69: The information in this sentence is important to understand the rationale to why specific variables are tested; the sentence should be shortened to where “although other factors may be involved as well…” should be a stand-alone sentence.

Line 129–131: It would be helpful to have a short expansion on what the “requirement” for the hypoxic environment was.

Line 158: “The load was reduced [by] 5 % as …”

Line 220: “90% compatibility intervals” is abbreviated as (CIs). This is awfully close to the abbreviation, CI, that is used as confidence intervals. Since “CIs” is used about 3 times in the manuscript, it may be better to type it out instead of abbreviating it.

Lines 249–264: I find that it may be a more organized way to read if this was separated into three separate subsections.

Line 396: It may be of interest to include a brief mention of the small sample size
Experimental design: Lines 95–96: In the indication of what the current study will provide in the literature, it should include the term “hypoxia” since this study is specific to that. Additionally, this study is an acute study and the change in muscle mass and strength is not being examined here. Thus, the results of this study would not be able to determine training variables that are suitable for maximal muscle mass gains and strength gains. It would be of consideration that the rationale for how this study contributes to the literature should be restated.

Line 189–190: It would be of interest to add in why the RPE was taken 30 minutes after the exercise. Generally, the RPE is how a participant perceives his/her exertion level at the moment. Therefore, 30 minutes after would no longer seem to be the normal use of RPE. Although Foster et al. 2001 is cited, it would be best to provide some description of why this was used and how this would be the best method in answering your current questions. For example, this could be called a “delayed RPE” and I believe the explanation that was used in Foster was that it was meant to not have participants who would not drastically rate based on difficult or easy segments in the exercise bout.
Validity of the findings: Line 167–168: Excuse me as I am a little perplexed in reading the average SpO2 separated into 3 different groups. Since the “N” group consisted of 9 individuals from “HH” and 7 individuals from “NH” totaling to 16 individuals in the “N” group and then separate means for the “HH” and the “NH” group which would seemingly indicate that there was (16 + 9 +7) 32 individuals that were accounted for the sample size. Since there was mentioning of G1 and G2, then the average here should be expressed as so.

In the results section: I see the rationale with reporting the effect sizes while providing indications of how meaningful the findings were but that does not allow the reader to know what changes have occurred. As a suggestion, it would be of interest to add in the average changes and SD. Thus, the reader can see what the values were for the dependent variables and how meaningful it is via the ES.

Lines 347–348: What makes “blood lactate concentration […] should have been higher in N”? This may be better if expanded in order to explain the idea and then continue to explain why the researchers have observed, otherwise.

Line 408: In the sentence “[…] shorter session’s inter-set rest intervals (60 s) provide a more potent perceptual”, what is potent perceptual? Is it more so of a potent perception?

Lines 409–410: It may be difficult to state that this “could maximize hypertrophic adaptations in longer periods of training” because this was specifically an acute test and the conclusions may be better if it stays within what was tested. This is mentioned further along with the conclusion so it may be best to not state this at all.
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: INTER-SET REST CONFIGURATION EFFECT ON ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED RESPONSES TO A RESISTANCE TRAINING SESSION IN TERRESTRIAL VS SIMULATED HYPOXIA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: I commend the authors on their work. This is an interesting and overall well written manuscript. I found many aspects of this manuscript interesting and I hope the authors find my feedback helpful.

Introduction:

1.	Introduction Page 6 lines 54-59 “Training volume and load are considered primary factors to maximize strength and hypertrophy (Kraemer and Ratamess 2004), but other variables, such as rest intervals, also play a role in the phenotypic response to RT.”– I am not sure that training volume is an important factor for strength. Further, it does not seem like load is an important factor for hypertrophy. Rather, it seems that specificity of load is important for strength and a sufficient amount of activation/recruitment is necessary for growth. I would modify this slightly.

2.	Intro line 59-62 – “Evidence suggests that RT performed under hypoxic conditions may produce an added benefit to strength and muscle mass development compared to an equivalent amount of training under normoxic conditions….This benefit is purportedly linked to the augmented accumulation of metabolic byproducts at hypoxia, such as blood lactate or protons (H+) among others, derived from the increase in anaerobic metabolism to compensate the loss of oxygen (O2) availability” – Are these benefits similar for strength and hypertrophy? I believe that for strength the data is a little less consistent. In addition, authors cite work of Manimmanakorn; however, there is other research that should be considered that does not find a difference between BFR conditions and non-BFR conditions when exercise is performed to failure. It may be more appropriate to cite research that performed the same number of reps and compared BFR or hypoxic conditions to non-BFR hypoxic conditions (considering that authors state when an equivalent amount of training is performed).

3.	There is a lot of discussion of metabolic contributions in the introduction, which led me to suspect that BFR was going to be included in this study. I think it is important to consider that pooling metabolites within a muscle through limiting venous return with BFR is likely different compared to mechanisms associated with hypoxia. Some clarification on the metabolite response to hypoxia and the ability to clear the metabolites during rest periods under hypoxia would be beneficial

4.	Introduction, Page 7 lines 82-83: “Contrarily, inter-set rest periods longer than 90 s seem to limit the potential hypoxic benefit on the muscle response after a single RT session (Scott et al. 2015a, b)”….” I think this statement may need a little elaboration as it seems important regarding the rationale of this paper. However, the Scott 2015b does not seem to support this statement as the authors only examined 3 minutes of rest. Their review paper seems to flush out the topic and I think that some of the rational behind this idea can be presented a little better in the introduction. The Kon and Ho papers from 2014 also do not compare rest periods. Thus, perhaps clarify that some studies utilizing short rest periods have observed differences whereas, studies utilizing longer rest periods have not observed differences.

5.	Regarding comment 4 (above) do all of the studies match repetitions or have individuals train to failure? This would be an important consideration when discussing these studies. For comparison, sometimes BFR appears beneficial if 2 groups are lifting the same load and completing the same repetitions. However, if repetitions are performed until failure, these differences largely seem to disappear.
Experimental design: 6.	Methods – Authors state that “Absolute training load by exercise (kg) and repetitions to failure were monitored during each  training session.” However, it is previously stated that 3sets of 10 repetitions at 70%1RM are performed on each exercise. Can the authors please clarify?

7.	Following up on the previous comment, it seems like some individuals were training to failure and others weren’t. Can the authors report what percent of sets in each training condition were performed to failure?

8.	Perceptual Responses – Why was perceptual response taken 30 minutes following the exercise bout and not during the exercise bouts? Can Authors please clarify?
Validity of the findings: Discussion/Analysis/Conclusions
9.	“The present research compares the potential effect of a moderate rest interval (60 s) to a longer rest interval (120 s) during a traditional non-failure RT program, that preserved mechanical stress between conditions.”  - I am unsure of this comment unless it is clarified how often individuals were actually training to failure.

10.	Can the authors provide clarification on the statistical analysis? My understanding is that using the pre-test standard deviation or pooled pre-test and post-test standard deviation for a specific variable (although often used in exercise science) does not explain the variability of the training effect, but rather the variability of the study population. Instead it has been suggested that the between group Cohen’s d may be more appropriate. It seems that the beetween group Cohen’s d was sometimes (I think only for training volume)….but not always reported.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28277241/

11.	Discussion: Page 13 Lines 311-314 – “Considering that the level of recruitment seemingly cannot provide a mechanistic explanation for the physiological differences between the inter-set rest periods, other factors, such as the observed metabolic effect linked to shorter rest intervals, may be at least partially responsible for these differences” – I am not sure this is necessarily true as the proximity to failure may be different between the 2 conditions. Might this infer differences in recruitment?  If one condition was training to failure and the other wasn’t than metabolites potentially had an indirect effect on recruitment or overall stress

12.	The fact that some sets were taken to failure and others weren’t may be perceived as a limitation. This difference in training conditions may dilute differences caused by the intervention.

13.	Conclusion “In conclusion, shorter session’s inter-set rest intervals (60 s) provide a more potent perceptual, cardiovascular and metabolic stimulus in all environmental conditions, which could maximize hypertrophic adaptations in longer periods of training. – I am not sure that this statement is supported in this study. Authors do not discuss differences in hypertrophic potential in the discussion, so I was surprised to see this in the conclusion. I think this statement should be tempered a bit. It is acknowledged later in the conclusion with more caution, but may not belong in the first sentence.
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: INTER-SET REST CONFIGURATION EFFECT ON ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED RESPONSES TO A RESISTANCE TRAINING SESSION IN TERRESTRIAL VS SIMULATED HYPOXIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have done a nice job of amending their paper and improving the clarity based on feedback. Thank you for making the suggested changes.

Congratulations again on an interesting study.
Experimental design: No further comments
Validity of the findings: No further 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: INTER-SET REST CONFIGURATION EFFECT ON ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED RESPONSES TO A RESISTANCE TRAINING SESSION IN TERRESTRIAL VS SIMULATED HYPOXIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors of this manuscript have provided an additional clear and professional structure of the material in the introduction, methods, results, and discussion. The additional explanations to the specific concerns as mentioned prior were amended and adds a greater understanding of the reason specific methods were implemented. Overall, excellent revision.
Experimental design: The research question is well-defined and meaningful. This allows a specific population, already strength-trained individuals, to be evaluated. The methods added provide sufficient detail and information.

Lines 464 to 466: I think it is great to mention that the sample size was small but please add a sentence after it to provide justification. The authors did a great job providing an explanation in the rebuttal and this should be briefly added. Do not sell yourself short. Something along the lines of "However, this specific population is of interest, and the current methods and commitment are encumbering for this population". Although this was not done, as a side note, it may not be of good consideration to add on how other research did this, so we did as well.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions were well stated and linked to the research question.
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: INTER-SET REST CONFIGURATION EFFECT ON ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED RESPONSES TO A RESISTANCE TRAINING SESSION IN TERRESTRIAL VS SIMULATED HYPOXIA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed the majority of my concerns. I have a few additional comments that I hope the authors find constructive.

1.	Authors may consider revising the wording of their hypothesis statement. The use of the phrasing “greater physiological stimulus” is a little vague. For example, authors may consider saying “We hypothesized that short rest periods would produce greater changes in blood lactate, greater percetual responses and…..”.

2.	Page 6, Line 216- The word government is spelled incorrectly as goverment
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: 3.	Statistical Analysis: Please clarify which SD was used for calculation of effect sizes. Was it the pre SD or the SD of the change?
Additional comments: 4.	Discussion Page 11, Lines 417-419: Although the total volume load accumulated was similar, isn’t it possible that one condition was closer to failure than the other?  For example, if one condition completed all repetitions and could have (if allowed) performed an additional 5 reps on each set than this condition was potentially underdosed. The authors seem fixated on volume, which was similar (in part) by the design. I think that this should at least be acknowledged in the limitation section of the manuscript.

“This outcome was verified by the fact that the total volume-load accumulated during the RT sessions was quite similar in all environmental conditions and remained almost unaffected by the inter-set recovery periods.”


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: INTER-SET REST CONFIGURATION EFFECT ON ACUTE PHYSIOLOGICAL AND PERFORMANCE-RELATED RESPONSES TO A RESISTANCE TRAINING SESSION IN TERRESTRIAL VS SIMULATED HYPOXIA
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors have addressed my concerns. I have only one final minor comment.

Introduction: The sentence below seems to be missing and ending. Do authors mean that strong inferences cannot be drawn with regards to more complex or metabolically demanding protocols?
“The only previous study to examine the effects of different rest periods during RT under H conditions (Lockhart et al. 2020) used a single-joint exercise, thus limiting the ability to draw strong inferences as to whether short rest intervals combined with different types of hypoxia may enhance muscular adaptations.”
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: EXPERIMENTALLY BROADCAST OCEAN SURF AND RIVER NOISE ALTERS BIRDSONG
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: To see how birds sing under different natural noise conditions the authors recorded 6 songbird species under different playback conditions and under different natural ambient noise conditions. This is an interesting and valuable study as it shows that several of the known song strategies that birds use to cope with urban noise are also present when they deal with natural ambient noise.

This work is overall clearly written. However, Tables S1-S9 are not described; it would be good to have one or more legends for these tables, or explanations somewhere else. What are the bold words? What are + and – signs in the first column? In Table S2, what is SS and TS? What are the numbers inside the columns and rows; for instance, what is 93? Why in different colors of grey and some in white? Below Idaho, what sample size does 232 and 52 refer to (I guess this is 52 songs, or is it males? from a total of 232?).

The figures are clear and professional.

I find the cited literature apropriate.
Experimental design: The study design is a bit unusual and can be difficult to grasp the first timeof reading. This is because the study design combines recordings of birds exposed to playbacks with recordings of birds not exposed to playbacks but resembling some of the playback treatments (natural noise). To aid in clarity, I recommend that the authors add a figure showing a map where they show the sites/playback treatments where the birds were recorded, habitat type, sample size as number of males recorded (even if this is shown in Table S2, which is confusing, see my comment above), and any other information deemed as relevant.

Lines 90-91. ¨…signal modification would be larger in noisier locations…¨ I know this sounds intuitive, but do you have a precise idea of why you expect this?

Line 178. Was this measured noise from the experimental playback, and natural measured noise from the environment (when no playback was broadcast)? Please be explicit.

Lines 198-199. “6 to 403m” Did you control for distance in your analyses, or this is taken into account with the noise level measures (the greater the distance, the lower the noise level)? Does this mean that those birds farther away were exposed to a playback noise of as low as 27.5dB and 34.8 dB (lines
305)? If this is correct, could it be that those birds were not really responding to the playback but to the natural ambient noise levels of the environment?
Validity of the findings: Given the experimental design and statistical analyses, I find overall the results valid. I just have a comment on lines 523-525. Given that the sample size for intra-individual comparisons was not sufficient, I do not see why you think that your results are likely the result of short-term behavioral flexibility, and deem other explanations (like cultural evolution) as less likely. If you had successfully analyzed at the intra-male level (same individual with and without noise), you could be more certain that the observed pattern is the result of vocal flexibility. However, it seems that your experiment was not really designed to test for behavioral flexibility.
Additional comments: Line 305-306. Please give more details on the way you measured ambient noise from the singing location of the focal bird? How many measures did you take? pointing the sound meter toward the sky? placed on a tripod? for how long time? Additionally, are these noise measures those that are result of the playback treatments, or just ambient noise levels from the natural environment, or both?

Table 2. When I read “reference condition”, I was confused about what you meant. It seems “reference condition” is always the letter at the left of the comparison, right? Because we read from left to right, the reference condition, by definition, will always be the letter at the left (?). Additionally, the concept of “reference condition” may be misleading because for instance in the comparison C>PC>S, one may assume that PC is not a reference condition because it is not underlined. However, PC may be considered as a reference condition in the comparison with S, as PC is at the left of, and larger than, S. Please explain a bit more if I misunderstood something. If I am right, you do not need to underline a letter, and you can avoid the whole explanation on “reference condition”.

Did you check if your song attributes (e.g. min frequency, frequency 5%) were inter-correlated prior to analyses? It would be redundant to analyze correlated acoustic variables

Lines 406-407. Why “frequency decrease”? Are “broader bandwidths” (line 402) considered a frequency decrease?

Line 489. “save”

Lines 517. I don’t follow the logic here. Increasing the center frequency results in increasing the pitch, right? If the shifted river noise is composed of relatively high frequencies, how increasing song pitch (and making it closer to the noise frequencies), would improve song transmission?

Figure 2. I guess the noise levels in the X-axes are the result of your treatments (?).I know in lines 285-288 you give some info on noise levels, but it would be good to have more details (e.g. which treatments?), perhaps in the legend.


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: EXPERIMENTALLY BROADCAST OCEAN SURF AND RIVER NOISE ALTERS BIRDSONG
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This study is a strong contribution to the literature on noise impacts on acoustic communication in birds, in this case looking at natural noise sources with and without altered frequency characteristics. This allow us to address the impact of overall amplitude versus the degree of song masking in eliciting responses. The experiment is well controlled and replicated. The analyses are straightforward and transparent. The paper is well written and the figures are excellent. The tables are a challenge to interpret, as there is a great deal going on; but I don’t know what to suggest for improvement. My only concern is the number of comparisons conducted, which is quite high, leading to the possibility of correlations by chance. The use of model comparisons doesn’t eliminate that concern. However, the predictions were presented in advance and the authors are clear about which results were unexpected. My suggestion is that the authors address this in the manuscript, as I suspect other readers will note the same issue.

Otherwise my comments are minor:

Lines 151-154: The process for creating the shifted sounds is not clear. What shifts are conducted?  Only the process of filtering and amplification are described. Is that what is meant by shifting? I think many will interpret this term to mean that the frequencies are increased or decreased in a given vocalization, similar to how we’d describe a bird shifting the frequency of a note. Clarify why the playback files were split then recombined after amplification.

Line 270-278: It’s not clear whether you are putting all species into one model or running this analysis for each species separately.

Line 292-298: I appreciate the transparency about planned vs post hoc analyses

Line 390: it might help to add a sentence or 2 here clarifying the alternatives to short-term adjustment for those unfamiliar with the literature

Line 547: I suggest avoiding the word “coping” when describing adjustments to noise, as it suggests that the vocal adjustments successfully deal with the noise.  Even if the response is adaptive, it may or may not suffice to overcome negative impacts of human-made noise.  The term “responding” avoids this implication.

Table: A reminder in the legend of which recordings are included in the subset would help
Experimental design: see above
Validity of the findings: see 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: DIFFERENT ROLES OF URINARY LIGHT CHAINS AND SERUM LIGHT CHAINS AS POTENTIAL BIOMARKERS FOR MONITORING DISEASE ACTIVITY IN SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for providing the Table 1 Label free quantification analysis. However, the data needs to be supported by providing the raw files generated from Q-Exactive mass spectrometer.
Experimental design: I appreciate the authors extensive effort to compile human SLE data set. The manuscript is well written with professional language. Necessary ethical approval statement is provided. The identifiable patient information has been removed.

In Line 97 section 1.2 Mass spectrometry, the authors need to describe in brief how they processed their urine samples for Label free quantitative proteomics. What was the enzyme used, was reduction/alkylation performed, were the samples desalted etc before processing them on Q-Exactive mass spectrometer?

While the authors have included healthy group as control for immunofixation electrophoresis analysis, however in Line 98-99, the authors have only used active and stable SLE patients for proteomics analysis without controls. The control samples should be included.
Validity of the findings: In the discussion section line 290 – 293, the authors mention using proteomics technology to examine the expression of the overall light chains in urine and serum. However, there is no mention of processing serum samples in the Mass Spectrometry section 1.2. The authors need to clarify if serum samples were processed for label free proteomics analysis.
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: DIFFERENT ROLES OF URINARY LIGHT CHAINS AND SERUM LIGHT CHAINS AS POTENTIAL BIOMARKERS FOR MONITORING DISEASE ACTIVITY IN SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. The introduction has been written in a vague manner. Instead of elaborating on the disease activity parameters and symptom flare, the authors should describe the limitations of hitherto known urinary biomarkers. The part: 'To protect important organs and ........... accompanied by irreversible organ damage' is redundant and irrelevant. A concise note on the urinary biomarkers would help readers understand the current scenario about them in SLE.
Experimental design: The experimental design can not be commented upon unless the below-mentioned 3 parameters are addressed adequately.

1. Why have the authors chosen to use the 1997 Lupus classification criteria which have now been replaced by the 2012 SLICC and 2019 ACR/EULAR criteria?

2. Dividing patients' severity status just based on SLEDAI is incorrect. They also need to see that renal SLEDAI (rSLEDAI) which is a sum of all the 4 renal parameters of SLEDAI is also taken into account. For example, a patient with arthritis, skin rash, and raised anti-ds DNA/low complements would score >5 on SLEDAI but can not be called a severe disease whereas a patient with nephrotic range proteinuria with raised anti-ds DNA/low complements would also fall into the same group but would be classified as severe disease as he/she would need more intense immunosuppression as compared to the previous one. This is a major drawback of the study where patients with and without renal involvement have been grouped together on the basis of the same SLEDAI value which is likely to give incorrect results. For this kind of study, it is imperative that patients of the same kind i.e. renal active OR non-renal active be classified separately into mild, moderate, and high disease activity.

3. How have the authors defined active and stable disease? If they have used SLEDAI, what's the definition of active disease as per the SLEDAI value?
Validity of the findings: The validity of the findings would further depend upon the case definition which needs to be elaborated as per my comments in the above section.
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: DIFFERENT ROLES OF URINARY LIGHT CHAINS AND SERUM LIGHT CHAINS AS POTENTIAL BIOMARKERS FOR MONITORING DISEASE ACTIVITY IN SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In the article "Different roles of urinary light chains and serum light chains as potential biomarkers for monitoring disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus", the authors investigated the changes of antibody light chain components in serum and urine in order to develop a more precise and diagnostic biomarker for systemic lupus erythematosus. Since SLE is known to be an auto-immune disease, the carried out study compared and contrast the antibody light chain components between active and stable SLE patients, and established a diagnosis guideline using these information at the end. The paper is clearly written and sufficiently referenced for readers to understand the urgency of the problem as well as the underlying mechanism and conclusion.

- Fig. 1A and Fig. 2A miss labels of corresponding category, mild, moderate, severe, or stable.
- Use “scatter plot with bar” graph in Prism to show the datapoint distribution for all bar graphs in the paper.
- Fig. 3 is better to be explained and presented at the beginning of the paper.
Experimental design: For the ten samples used for screening and identification of the urine proteins, the authors need to clarify whether/how N=5 was picked for each group and was representative for the group. Especially, which one category, mild, moderate or severe, was chosen for the active group?
Validity of the findings: The presented data from serum protein comparisons, although in some cases statistically significant, do not show distinguishable changes to be a reliable bio-marker among patients with different disease severity. Would “expanding the sample size” really make the changes more significant as the authors proposed? Or, it might just be a worse indicator compared to urine samples.
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: DIFFERENT ROLES OF URINARY LIGHT CHAINS AND SERUM LIGHT CHAINS AS POTENTIAL BIOMARKERS FOR MONITORING DISEASE ACTIVITY IN SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have made the necessary changes as requested and have added more information as requested.
Experimental design: The authors have described the processing of Urine samples in more details compared to their previous draft of manuscript. The Mass Spectrometry data has been added as per request.
Validity of the findings: The urine and serum data has been validated well. The methodology as well as raw data support their findings.
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: DIFFERENT ROLES OF URINARY LIGHT CHAINS AND SERUM LIGHT CHAINS AS POTENTIAL BIOMARKERS FOR MONITORING DISEASE ACTIVITY IN SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The revision has addressed all my comments.


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

Input:
Title: LOCALLY DEVELOPED MODELS IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF REMOTELY ASSESSED METRICS AS A RAPID TOOL TO CLASSIFY SANDY BEACH MORPHODYNAMICS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have now read "Locally developed models improve the accuracy of
remote sensing as a rapid tool to assess and classify
sandy beach morphodynamics (#70546)".

i do not think the manuscript currently does enough to contextualize the work. For example, not enough text explains the point of measuring beach state for ecological studies, and what has been done previously to measure beach state (especially via remote sensing).

1) the paper is largely motivated by ecological studies of beach state, but can the paper demonstrate how knowing if "reflective, intermediate, or dissipative" is specifically useful for ecological and biodiversity studies? please include this information in the intro to motivate the paper.

2) the paragraph starting line 41: Defining beach state has been a common activity for coastal geomorphologists since atleast Guza and Inman 1975 and Wright and Short 1984. I think the paper needs to look in the literature (including and beyond these two papers) and explain what beach state is, why its even useful (i.e., understanding hydrodynamic conditions and sediment transport patterns) and why specifically its even useful for ecological studies (i.e., the motivation from the first paragraph). To this end, new text is needed to specifically justify Line 57-59; New text is needed on the specific examples from the cited papers on Line 55-57.

3) The paragraph on line 24 ends by discussing how beach state has been determined using the Harris 2011 method. What other methods have been used to determine beach state from remotely sensed imagery? what are the benefits/drawbacks of the Harris et al 2011 method vs others? The paper should include a literature review on beach state because many coastal geomorphologists have worked on remote sensing of beach state. Wright and Short has been cited over 2000 times, and 500 of those citations have come in the past 4 years, so it would be worth looking through those abstracts to see what else has been done to monitor morphodynamics remotely (aside from Harris et al 2011).
Experimental design: Section starting on 110 and 113 : I don't understand how/if tidal correction was done? For both field and remote sensing, the intertidal width would be strongly dependent on the when in the tidal cycle measurements were taken. Please explain the exact way that tidal stage was controlled.
Validity of the findings: I am concerned that the developed predictor is so strongly dependent on intertidal width (Line 258-259). What are the specific implications of this specific finding? Should we expect this model to be general and transferable? how does it compare to Harris' work? What were the controls in that paper? why are they different/same? How about the other studies that used the Harris predictor? have other beach state prediction papers found the same single control?
Additional comments: No additional comments