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: MODELLING OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON FLOW CONDITIONS IN THE LOWLAND ANASTOMOSING RIVER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In general the manuscript reads a correct English.
References are sometimes insufficient but the context is well established (see general comments).
The manuscript follows the structure proposed by the journal.
Experimental design: The manuscript provides original and primary research within the scope of the jounal.
Research questions are well defined but contribution of the article needs to be clarified (see the general comments).
The methods used for the investigation adequately fit the purpose but in the information provided is far from being replicated. Model descriptors are vaguely shown or sometimes not even mentioned (see pdf file).
Validity of the findings: Results are significant to propose recommendations but not irrefutable. The text should read coherent with this.
Additional comments: This paper presents very interesting findings referred to conservation of anastomosing rivers and the use of cascade modelling. It proposes a methodology that combines hydrological and hydraulic models in an original way which may help to predict river conservation problems before these type of rivers disappear from the European continent. The strength of the paper, i.e. the methodology and application to river management, has the potential to be published and fits well with the scope of the journal. However, in order to be published, it needs major modification of its current form, mainly clarifying the methods to be reproducible, focus the discussion on model applications, and rewrite the conclusions to fit with the aims of the paper. In addition, a number of minor comments have been added directly to the attached pdf.
The questions that in my opinion will improve the paper to a publishable level are the following:
1-The introduction creates a well-founded background of the anastomosing river problems. To avoid a “study case paper” it needs to be clarify that the River Narew is just the example where to carry out the investigation. It also needs to state clearer why the paper is taking climate change effects and not human impacts as well (introduced in L37-39).
2-Methods section starts with Site description. It lacks of a good hydrological characterization of the river. River flows, high and low discharges, flooding, seasonality, and other useful data for the reader should be added. Difinition of Low Flow needs clarification (L120-123) and a good referencing. In addition, some more explanation on simulation parameters, boundary conditions, and justification of selected values must be included. In general, this section is poorly explained.
3-Results are simple and clear and well written. There is no mention to the raw supplementary material or explanation of it in the manuscript.
4-Discussion is well divided in two subsections showing the main results of the paper: advantages of the cascade modelling and conservation perspectives of anastomosing rivers. To enhance this section the author must order carefully and clarify the ideas that support the stated hypothesis (see the attached pdf).
5-Conclusions needs to be rewritten completely and does not fit completely tosure that the objectives should fit with conclusions.
 It is presented as an abstract and not to highlight the main conclusions of the paper. It is very “case-study” as well. I recommend to state clearly 1) why we should use hydrological models to manage river systems (they may tell different trends than the pure climatic simulations) and 2) why is important to act quickly today in anastomosing river systems (ecological loss in future predictions).
6-Figures and tables need some minor changes (see pdf). Raw data is not mentioned in the main text and there is no explanation on what is actually there. Please provide a key for them.


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: MODELLING OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON FLOW CONDITIONS IN THE LOWLAND ANASTOMOSING RIVER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Modelling of climate change impact on flow conditions in the lowland anastomosing river.

The above manuscript is used an integrated modeling framework of SWAT and HEC-RAS to investigate the hydrodynamics at river reach scale of an anastomosing river system. This study is useful for watershed managers and practitioners to formulate appropriate policy for designing restoration work in the freshwater ecosystem. However, I have following concerns and I want the authors should address them before get published:

1-	Please, explain how predicted daily streamflow is lesser in the reach scale while increasing trend in the catchment scale mentioned in the Abstract?
2-	Please, include following reference in line 23-24 as additional reference to impacts of climate change to watershed scale:

Giri, S., Arbab, N.N., Lathrop, R.G., 2019. Assessing potential impacts of climate and land use change on water fluxes and sediment transport in a loosely coupled system. Journal of Hydrology 577, 123955.

3-	Change to demonstrates line 35.
4-	A schematic presentation of Integrated modeling framework representing SWAT, HEC-RAS, climate change inputs, field works as well as output from each model should be provided in a new figure. This figure should be inserted below section 2.3. It will overall provide the modeling framework of the study at a glance to readers. Author can refer different models and input parameters while describing the remaining material and methods section.
5-	The low flow threshold value is 7 (m3/sec) based on 80% exceedance probability of daily observed flow. I am curious whether this 80% is randomly assigned or is there a reason behind it?
6-	Remove “and” in line 132.
7-	Generally, for SWAT calibration Nash Sutcliffe Efficiency is used to calibrate the model. Why did the author use Kling–Gupta efficiency for model calibration? Is there a reason behind it?
8-	Line 165 to 173: Authors have described the characteristics of climate change component pattern which should be moved to Results section under “Catchment scale hydrological response to climate change”.
9-	Please, provide in the section 2.4.2 climate change scenario regarding how the authors dealt with uncertainty in climate data from the GCM. In the results section, the authors have mentioned that they used “ensemble median approach”. Elaborate that in the section 2.4.2
10-	Figure 2 is not refered inside the text in the manuscript. The authors can incorporate in section 2.4.2.
11-	Figure 4 does not provide the information written by authors in section 3.1. Authors have mentioned annual and seasonal increase in discharge in the text while the figure is represented in monthly format. I would provide the discharge value on annual and seasonal basis in the graph/ table based on the paragraph written in section 3.1, so that readers can check the figure based on the writing. At current state, its kind of mismatch between writing and figure 4.

11-Similar discripacy was observed for figure 3 and writing of annual temperature and precipitation as well as their seasonal pattern in section 2.4.2

12-	One of the major piece of information missing in this manuscript is “ how did the authors model the reaches starting from section NG and splitting into “NR”  and “NL” and back to “ND” (figure 1C) in SWAT model?. Does all the reached comes under one subbasin or all the reaches are in different subbasins. It would be more clear If author can provide subbasin background in figure 1C. The other question I have is if the reaches of NR and NL comes under 1 subbasin, then how did authors get the streamflow value for two reaches in 1 subbasin as SWAT model assigns only 1 reach per subbsin.

The uniqueness of this study is understanding the in-stream hydraulics and morphology of anastomosing river systems. Therefore, authors need to describe in more detail how they developed that section in SWAT model. This will help other researchers to model the similar river systems around the world.
13-	Provide a paragraph of your study limitation


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

Input:
Title: MODELLING OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON FLOW CONDITIONS IN THE LOWLAND ANASTOMOSING RIVER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an overall interesting and well-structured manuscript on the impacts of climate change on an anastomosing river (reach) in the Narew river basin in Poland. The authors present an integrated modeling framework using SWAT as a baseline catchment hydrology model that provides the driving runoff data for the HEC-RAS model, applied to a selection of river reaches, where degradation has been observed in previous studies. The study applies bias-corrected data from nine EURO-CORDEX simulations for the baseline, near future and far future time horizons under the RCP4.5-scenario.

Findings indicate a fairly small impact on low flow conditions, yet with an assumed trend towards slightly decreasing flow velocities and an increased number of lof flow days. It is argued that the sign of change requires a consideration of climate change impacts to increase the preparedness level for timely and appropriate conservation measures for river (reach) protection.

The manuscript is generally will written and clearly structured; the setup is logical, the conducted work done and presented in a straight-forward manner..

Still, I have some concerns that I would consider to require "major revisions" before the manuscript merits publication in PeerJ. I made many comments in the annotated pdf, which I kindly ask you to thoroughly take into consideration.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: These are my major points in summary:

Language of the manuscript is generally good, but there are substantial problems in the usage of definite and indefinite articles. I made several corrections but then gave up - there are so many... Please revise the whole manuscript for this particular issue as it makes some sentences very difficult to comprehend. Further, I recommend to cut down on the number of self-citations, especially in the introduction (lines 48ff) or the discussion chapter 4.2 (lines 304ff).

Please help to cure my concerns in these contextual aspects:

- comment on the general problem of investigating low flow with a modeling approach that doesn't explicitly consider groundwater flow in a substantial matter. The fact that SWAT has been applied in many several contexts is not a very satisfactory explanation.

- comment on the mismatch of results from SWAT and HEC-RAS. Why are the signs of flow change in the models different? Which ones are correct??

- can you really speak of an IMF, as long as the applied models are uni-directionally coupled?

- most importantly: can you really claim significant findings of change, given the very limited (and partly even contradictory) range of changes captured in the modelling framework? You should comment more on the inherent uncertainties in your setup and then balance your statements against these uncertainties.

- given the rather small impacts on flow velocity and volumes, I wonder whether you are not overemphasizing the statements towards the impacts on the anastomosing river and the consequential conservation needs?
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: MODELLING OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON FLOW CONDITIONS IN THE LOWLAND ANASTOMOSING RIVER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is now clear and authors have used good number of literature to support this research. The structures figures, and tables are articulated clearly.
Experimental design: The research question is well defined and relevant to the real world scenarios. The study methods are described sufficiently and are based on science based information.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are modified based on the suggestions from the reviewers.
Additional comments: Authors have addressed my comments as well as comments from other reviewers. I am satisfied with the effort and recommend for publication.


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

Input:
Title: MARSUPIAL AND MONOTREME MILK—A REVIEW OF ITS NUTRIENT AND IMMUNE PROPERTIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The review is an exhaustive up to date overview of the diversity of studies performed on marsupial and monotreme milk and what is known so far on its nutrient and immune properties. This represents a valuable contribution to lactation research at this time.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: Minor correction suggestions:

ref 8 line 70, should be instead ref 78 where the apocrine-like gland origin of the mammary gland was originally proposed: Olav T. Oftedal, The Mammary Gland and Its Origin During Synapsid Evolution. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia volume 7, pages225–252(2002)
I also suggest writing "apocrine-like" rather than just "apocrine"

line 177: this should be plural "but have not been studied..." as the refers to 3 lactation specific proteins.  Alternatively, perhaps better "but this has not been studied.." if referring to their use as markers.

line 200: I suggest "peaking" instead of "peak".

line 324: Atwater factors should be expressed in energy per gram: "kJ/g", not "kJ". see also line 450.

line 332: this is more likely "at a time of accelerated growth..." rather than "is a time of accelerated growth...".

line 519: "may provide" rather than "may to provide"

line 581: the sentence needs adjustment, perhaps "It is also clear that the wide and varied definitions of the different stages and phases of milk production hinders comparison between many of the studies on marsupials".


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: MARSUPIAL AND MONOTREME MILK—A REVIEW OF ITS NUTRIENT AND IMMUNE PROPERTIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Marsupial and monotreme milk - A review of its nutrient and
immune properties

A comprehensive and very long description of the nutrient properties of marsupial and monotreme milk. The authors are to be complimented on the comprehensive nature of this well organized and well-written manuscript. It is a timely review will provide a valuable resource for years to come.

Some suggestions for improvement

The lengthy descriptive nature impeded an understanding of the importance of milk components, especially during the early stages of development.  For example section 4.3. “Carbohydrates” – Why do carbohydrates change?  This was explained well for iron and maternal nutrition. Without substantially increasing the manuscript, some interpretation of the biological significance of the milk components as different stages would be beneficial

Section 11 Conclusions. This was the weakest link in this manuscript. Rather than conclusions, it was more of an abbreviated review. Statements such as “Further research is needed to assess changes in macronutrient composition of monotreme milk.” need to be justified and explained why more research is needed. Is it simply for the sake of knowledge or does it have conservation issues?

A suggestion would be to restructure the conclusions away from description to interpretation and significance. This could be linked to conservation and artificial milk formulations. There are almost 200 references, but “further research is needed” is often stated. It would be beneficial to indicate why. Is the research invalid, wrong species, wrong nutrients etc.?

Referencing used an incorrect format as PeerJ uses the 'Name. Year' style with an alphabetized reference list, not numbered as used in this review. The reference section was also incorrect.

Some comments have been added directly to the pdf document.
Experimental design: Not relevant as this was a review article.
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: LEARNING TO PREDICT PAIN: DIFFERENCES IN PEOPLE WITH PERSISTENT NECK PAIN AND PAIN-FREE CONTROLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall the article is well written
To comply with the study being self contained the justification for the sample size should be stated in this paper and not referenced to a previous paper (line 126)
The raw data is contained, however this would be best done as an excel document for greater access instead of an SPSS document.
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: A limitation that should be included or a future options for research is for the results to be verified by another research lab. All the findings to date in this area have been done by one lab and need to be independently replicated by another lab. This should be mentioned in the discussion.
Additional comments: 1.	In table 1 please include the mean difference scores and a 95%CIs
2.	For the analysis plan. Please include a small section for each hypothesis as to how the planned analysis would test the hypotheses the benchmark you used for determining if the statistical test confirmed or rejected the hypothesis. For example with the first hypothesis investigating differential pain expectancy judgements explain how the RM ANOVA would determine if there was a difference. This may be more easily down in the previous section when describing the experiment and explaining how the different components of the experiment were used to investigate the different hypothesis.
3.	At the moment there are many statistical outcome measures i.e. corrected p values and partial eta squared. Why were both used and what was used to determine if the hypothesis was met. How were the eta values interpreted?
4.	Line 272 states there was no significant conflict in the results, indicating that there may have been some conflict. Please expand on what the differences were and which analysis software was used for which part of the analysis or if the different software was used by different authors.
5.	Throughout the statistical analysis plan the term “planned” is used frequently. Is there any available evidence, such as a published analysis plan, that these were in fact “planned”. If no such evidence is available then please state this explicitly.
6.	If the authors could review the introduction to ensure that the key themes are explained in the most clear way possible. My specific suggestion here is to ensure that there is a clear link as to how the experiment answers the research question- this may be better done in the methods section. I feel this will improve the readability of the study for people unfamiliar with the techniques used. The risk is that if the reader is not able to understand how the experiment answers the research question then they are more likely to question the validity of the findings. I feel that if point 2 is adequately addressed this may resolve the current point.
Minor Comments
7.	It is concerning how many times the term “may” is used in the introduction. As the conclusion rightly points out longitudinal studies are required to determine how much associate learning is important in the development of chronic neck pain. The consistent use of the term “may” implies that there are still many “leaps” in the model. I do not think this should be changed but just an observation.


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: LEARNING TO PREDICT PAIN: DIFFERENCES IN PEOPLE WITH PERSISTENT NECK PAIN AND PAIN-FREE CONTROLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This study compared the predictive learning between patients with chronic neck pain and pain-free controls, and three hypotheses were tested. Data in the acquisition stage showed significantly reduced differential pain-expectancy learning in patients than controls, as evidenced by the higher pain judgments for CS-, and lower pain judgments for CS+ in the acquisition stage. Data in the generalization stage showed flatter generalization gradients in the patient group than control group. However, data in the extinction stage did not show significant between-group difference. The authors interpreted this pattern of data as deficits in predictive learning in patients with neck pain. Overall, it is an interesting study, and I like this study that is well motivated and well written. The experimental design and data analysis is rational. I have several suggestions that the authors can consider for improvement.

For the hypothesis that patients have less differential acquisition in pain expectancy judgments than controls, the reduced differential learning was driven by lower expectancies for CS+ and higher expectancies for CS-. While the higher expectancies for CS- could be reflecting the reduced efficiency in evaluating safety cues, why the patients have lower expectancies for CS+? Can the authors more explicitly discuss this pattern of finding?

Have the authors have considered the possibility that the observed flatter generalization gradient in the patient group could be resulting from their less efficient learning in the acquisition stage. Maybe a mediation analysis can help clarify this problem, with X for group (patients vs. controls), M for acquisition learning (e.g., differential learning), and Y for generalization gradient. At least, the possible relationship should be discussed in the manuscript.

I would suggest the authors test whether the inter-individual variability in predictive learning deficit relates to pain severity/disability across the patients. This can help clarify the relationship between pain and predictive learning.


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: LEARNING TO PREDICT PAIN: DIFFERENCES IN PEOPLE WITH PERSISTENT NECK PAIN AND PAIN-FREE CONTROLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The English is clear and professional,
The introduction set the work in context.
The figures were clear and readable, and helped to illustrate the key findings.
The structure conformed to Peer J policies.
The raw data was supplied but I could not open the file to check it.
Experimental design: This study took a novel approach using sound experimental methods to the question of how fear avoidance type behaviours impacts the way individuals with chronic pain evaluate perceived risk. This issue is that failure to differentiate between cues that truly predict danger and those that do not, can lead to inappropriate fear which exacerbates fear-avoidance behaviours, making this an important study.

The methods were clear and well-described.

The only weakness is that the assumptions of normality for the ANOVAs were not described nor were this results reported. This needs to be addressed.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions were clear and well stated. The authors were clear in restating each hypothesis and the relevant findings related to that hypothesis.

The most robust and novel finding was that deficits in differential learning which suggest reduced efficiency in selectively evaluating safety cues in the chronic neck pain patients, ie. patients were able to learn when to expect pain, and when not too, but with greater uncertainty than healthy controls.

This is an important finding as it suggests altered discrimination across the spectrum which will fuel future studies  in the area.

It was important that in the limitations, the authors mentioned that the study was cross sectional, and that patients in the study only had mild to moderate pain, likely because opioid-use was an exclusion criteria
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: SPANXN2 FUNCTIONS A CELL MIGRATION INHIBITOR IN TESTICULAR GERM CELL TUMOR CELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Throughout the manuscript and especially in the introduction the use of English language should be significantly improved Examples lines 40-41, 52-54, 72-73…
Experimental design: For the referee, the information contained in the introduction, was not sufficient to understand the reasoning of the authors for choosing to investigate SPANX2 in TGCT tumors. Specifically, authors claim that it is important to understand the molecular signal of tumor metastasis (abstract) and then subsequently focus on the factor that is down regulated in the tumors vs normal tissue to discover that overexpression of this factor in tumor cell lines actually deteriorates tumor migration. It is therefore very difficult to imagine what role, if any, SPANXN2 plays in the metastasis of TGCT tumors. Maybe there are TGCT tumors that express different levels of Spanx2 that are correlated to survival/metastsis, but referee is not aware of this being the case.
Validity of the findings: The assays performed in this manuscript are difficult to interpret given the fact that the transient transfections are used. Cell cycle analyses after transient transfection with efficiency of 80% do not necessarily reflect the phenotype of Spanx2 overexpressing cells as this is a mixed population containing a significant amount of wt cells. Authors should have at best generated clonal cell lines that stably overexpress SPAnx2 and analyse per cell line two independent clones. Alternatively, the authors should have at least sorted the red fluorescent cells prior to cell cycle analyses. The same holds true for the colony assays performed. How do the authors know that colonies have grown from the cells expressing over expressing SPANX2? Because of this it very difficult to be sure that the data is interpreted correctly.
Furthermore for cell cycle analyses it states that experiment was repeated 2 times (line:146-147) in triplicate. In such a case graph 2E-F should not contain error bars, but rather two individual measurements. There are more examples of such inconsistencies, that referee will not detail at this point, but they shoudl all be corrected.
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: SPANXN2 FUNCTIONS A CELL MIGRATION INHIBITOR IN TESTICULAR GERM CELL TUMOR CELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: Please have a look at Major concerns: 3 to 6.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) are the most frequently diagnosed solid tumors in young men and their incidence has been increasing over the past decades. Despite the relatively good prognosis and known etiopathogenesis of these tumors, neither targeted therapy nor molecular prognostic/predictive factors have yet been implemented in the management of TGCT, because there is not enough information about the molecular pathways or molecules involved in TGCT development that could be used for patient stratification and treatment. It is inspiriting and beneficial to analyze the molecular signals of metastases associated with this process. In this manuscript, Dr. Zhu and colleagues looked at the role of the SPANXN2 in diagnosis and prognosis of TGCT. The study’s conclusion showed that SPANXN2 inhibits the ability of colony formation and could be a tumor suppressor through EMT/AKT signaling pathways in TGCT. Although the current study is interesting, there are some major concerns that need to be addressed before consideration of publication.

Major concerns:
1. “Materials & Methods – Human Testicular Samples” Line 77-85. Please give the study approval number from medical ethics committee.
2. “Materials & Methods – Cell Culture” Line 103. Please provide references on the source of TCAM-2 cells.
3. “Results – Validation of SPANXN2 Expression in TGCTs” Line 185-191. “Subsequent quantitative RT-PCR analysis of TGCTs samples and normal samples also confirmed the differential expression of SPANXN2 (Figure 1B).” The mRNA levels alone are not sufficient to support the conclusion that SPANXN2 is downregulated in TGCTs, thus protein levels of SPANXNA2 should to be tested by Western blotting (WB) or Immunohistochemistry (IHC).
4. “Results – SPANXN2 Inhibited Colony Formation ability” Line 194-199. “Quantitative RT-PCR was used to detect the relative expression of SPANXN2 in these two transfected TGCTs cell lines (TCAM-2, NCCIT), using β-actin as a reference (Figure 2C, 2D).” Protein levels of SPANXNA2 should to be tested by Western blotting (WB) in SPANXNA2 overexpressed cells.
5. “Results – SPANXN2 Negatively Regulates TGCTs Cell Migration” Line 217-221. The conclusion that SPANXN2 overexpression inhibits TGCT cell migration is the most important finding of this study, thus more experiments on cell migration are needed to present, such as wound healing assay.
6. “Results – SPANXN2 Influences the EMT and AKT Signaling Pathways” Line 224-231. “These results revealed that the expression of the EMT proteins Vimentin, Snail and Claudin1 was decreased (Figure 4C), suggesting that SPANXN2 regulates the EMT signaling pathway.” The process of EMT is more of a transformation of cell morphology. Does TGCTs cells change in morphology occur in SPANXN2 overexpression? The author should give typical photos of cells.
7. “Results – SPANXN2 Influences the EMT and AKT Signaling Pathways” Line 224-231. EMT and AKT protein are not directly related to each other. More studies have shown that AKT signaling pathway is primarily involved in cell survival and proliferation [1-2]. What are functions of SPANXN2 in influencing the AKT signaling pathway?
[1] Song M, Bode AM, Dong Z, Lee MH. AKT as a Therapeutic Target for Cancer. Cancer Res. 2019;79(6):1019–1031. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-2738
[2] Fresno Vara JA, Casado E, de Castro J, Cejas P, Belda-Iniesta C, González-Barón M. PI3K/Akt signalling pathway and cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2004;30(2):193–204. doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2003.07.007

Minor comments:
1. “Figure 1A and B”. Missing the units of y-axis label.
2. “Figure 2B”. Please use absolute numbers directly in clone formation analysis.
3. “Figure 2E and F”. Please perform the information of software and method for analyzing cell cycle. In addition, the scatter plot of flow cytometry should be perform for distribution of the cell cycle.


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: SPANXN2 FUNCTIONS A CELL MIGRATION INHIBITOR IN TESTICULAR GERM CELL TUMOR CELLS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors demonstrated that the expression of SPANXN2 was down-regulated in TGCTs compared with normal tissue. They also showed that SPANXN2 inhibited the migration of TGCTs cells through the down-regulation of EMT related genes Snail and Vimentin. However, there are several points to be clarified to confirm study conclusion.
Experimental design: Experimental design had no problem.
Validity of the findings: Because of the bad quality of Western Blot for Claudin 1 protein, authors cannot lead to the conclusion.
Additional comments: 1. In Figure 4, the detection of Claudin 1 protein is unclear by Western blot. Also, it is unclear that AKT and p-AKT proteins are down-regulated by SPANXN2. The AKT and p-AKT protein levels should be quantified normalized by GAPDH.
2. The term, EMT/AKT pathway is not common. The tile should be corrected.


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: SPANXN2 FUNCTIONS A CELL MIGRATION INHIBITOR IN TESTICULAR GERM CELL TUMOR CELLS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The use of English language has been somewhat improved even though still not perfect it is sufficient. The rationale of the study has been better illuminated.
Experimental design: My comments to experimental design still stand and have not been fully addressed. I do acknowledge replay by the authors  in not being able to perform sorting of transfected cells. The hesitation in constructing the stable transfected cell line(s) is less understandable. It is true that during the process of generating such lines a certain adaptation to prolonged culture could take place, but that occurs in every (cancer)cell line during prolonged culture. This means that cell lines the authors are using for transient transfection differ at passage 10 and 20. Typically two clones of stably transfected should be generated and experimentally investigated, passages should be noted... However it is true that the others have been granted basing their conclusions on transient transfections.
Validity of the findings: no additional 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: SPANXN2 FUNCTIONS A CELL MIGRATION INHIBITOR IN TESTICULAR GERM CELL TUMOR CELLS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Testicular germ cell tumors (TGCT) are the most frequently diagnosed solid tumors in young men and their incidence has been increasing over the past decades. Despite the relatively good prognosis and known etiopathogenesis of these tumors, neither targeted therapy nor molecular prognostic/predictive factors have yet been implemented in the management of TGCT, because there is not enough information about the molecular pathways or molecules involved in TGCT development that could be used for patient stratification and treatment. It is inspiriting and beneficial to analyze the molecular signals of metastases associated with this process. In this manuscript, Dr. Zhu and colleagues looked at the role of the SPANXN2 in diagnosis and prognosis of TGCT. The study’s conclusion showed that SPANXN2 inhibits the ability of colony formation and could be a tumor suppressor through EMT/AKT signaling pathways in TGCT. There are still several major concerns that need to be addressed, although the author has answered my question point to point.

Major concerns:
1. “The reply of major concerns 3”. I have found an antibody (SPANX-N2 MaxPab mouse polyclonal antibody, Catalog #: H00494119-B01, Abnova, http://www.abnova.com/products/products_detail.asp?catalog_id=H00494119-B01 ) that can detect the level of SPANXN2 with Western Blotting, so please check the expression of SPANXN2 in tissues and cells.
2. “The reply of major concerns 4”. In this manuscript, Line 117-118. “The sequence of SPANXN2 was cloned into the CMV-MCS-DsRed2-SV40-Neomycin-GV147 vector.” In the overexpression vector, DsRed2 is the C-terminal directly connected to SPANXN2. Although red fluorescence was observed after cell transfection, the translation of SPANXN2 was not completely guaranteed to be normal. Therefore, in rigorous experimental studies, the mRNA and protein levels of SPANXN2 should be further tested to ensure the success of the experiment.
3. “The reply of major concerns 5”. “We had performed the wound healing assay, but the difference of the result was not statistically significant between NC and SPANXN2. This may be due to the influence of cell proliferation is hard to exclude in the wound healing assay or other factors.” This sentence makes me feel very confused! If overexpression of SPANXN2 can inhibit both proliferation and migration, the results of the wound healing experiment should be significant rather than undifferentiated. If overexpression of SPANXN2 does not affect proliferation but does affect cell migration, then the wound healing assay results should be consistent with the transwell migration results. Thus, please present the results and give a further explanation. In addition, except for the wound healing assay and transwell migration assay, there are other experiments that can reflect the cell movement or migration.


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: LATERALIZED ALPHA OSCILLATIONS ARE IRRELEVANT FOR THE BEHAVIORAL RETRO-CUEING BENEFIT IN VISUAL WORKING MEMORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a very nice manuscript that will make an excellent addition to the literature. It is written very clearly and concisely.
Experimental design: The study has solid methods and analysis approach.
Validity of the findings: I only have minor comments, which do not dampen my enthusiasm.
Additional comments: The study tested the hypothesis that the magnitude of lateralized alpha oscillations affects the retro-cue benefit in working memory. The authors found that alpha lateralization magnitude was not correlated with this benefit. This is a very nice manuscript that will make an excellent addition to the literature. It is written very clearly and concisely. The study has solid methods and analysis approach.

I only have minor comments, which do not dampen my enthusiasm.

With regard to the behavioral data, the authors show that retro-cues increased memory precision as compared to neutral cues and that there was an attractive bias of the target item towards the non-target item regardless of the cueing condition. These results are interesting but also somehow surprising. First, most studies on retro-cue benefit that used mixture modeling to estimate the precision and guessing parameter found consistently benefits in guessing but only mixed evidence for benefits in precision (e.g. Souza&Oberauer, 2016). This mixed evidence is in contrast to the "extreme" evidence in the present study. Second, when two items are encoded simultaneously, most studies have reported a repulsive bias (e.g. Blakemore et al., 1970; Sweeny et al., 2011; Czoschke et al., 2019) rather than an attractive bias. It would be great if the authors could comment on these discrepancies.

A strength of the study is its sophisticated analysis approach that included a correlation of single-trial alpha lateralization (via decoding) with single-trial behavioral performance. However I wonder whether a much simpler approach, e.g. correlation of individual retro-cue benefits with individual magnitudes of lateralized alpha (or even by splitting subjects into two groups based on the strength of behavioral benefit and comparing the alpha power), would also be useful and would produce similar results?

The final point is somewhat pedantic: Using the cluster-based permutation test (CBPT) the authors report that „alpha-band power was stronger at electrodes located ipsilateral compared to contralateral relative to the cued target in the time range from 300 to 1070 ms over posterior electrodes“. While this cluster permutation test allows statements about significant differences between the ipsilateral versus contralateral condition, it does not allow statements about the specific frequency (alpha), timing (300-1070) or electrode position (posterior electrodes) of this effect. This is because no statistical inference was made about individual data points (frequency, time, electrode position). Please see e.g. http://www.fieldtriptoolbox.org/faq/how_not_to_interpret_results_from_a_cluster-based_permutation_test/ or Sassenhagen & Draschkow (2019). That means that to prove that the observed effect was present, e.g., at alpha frequency, requires a different statistical approach. Alternatively and more simply, the original statement could be reframed.


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: LATERALIZED ALPHA OSCILLATIONS ARE IRRELEVANT FOR THE BEHAVIORAL RETRO-CUEING BENEFIT IN VISUAL WORKING MEMORY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Reporting in the manuscript is excellent.
Experimental design: The experimental design is very good. As it pertains to the correlational analyses (does variation in lateralized alpha predict memory performance on cued trials), the ease of the memory task may be a hinderance to detecting a true relationship.
Validity of the findings: Very well-conducted analyses, but null results may not reflect a true lack of a connection between attention-to-memory and lateralized alpha, as discussed further in the General Comments section. Although a null relationship between strong/weak lateralized alpha trials or participants and memory performance is consistent with lateralized alpha not being related to memory prioritization, it could also stem from low variation in successfully orienting attention to the right memory, power reduction by median splitting, noisy EEG classification used to predict behavioural performance (as opposed to noiseless trial labels used in the cue/no-cue contrast), or that differences in power (not topography) index attention-to-memory.
Additional comments: This study poses a timely and important question: are alpha-oscillations a true neural correlate for the attention-to-memory process studied using retro-cues? The authors replicate previous findings of alpha lateralization when lateralized cues orient attention to locations of relevant items in memory but asked further whether variation in alpha lateralization can be used to predict variations in measures of attention-to-memory on a trial-by-trial, or participant-by-participant basis. Failing to find successful predictions, the authors conclude that it is unlikely that alpha lateralization marks the actual prioritization of memories.

I am generally favourable to the approach taken here, and the authors should be commended for conducting such high-quality research, but I have reservations about whether this approach provides strong evidence for the authors’ conclusions. Although the conclusions are plausible (variability in memory performance on retro-cue trials could be a matter losing information, not failing to try and access a memory, the latter of which could be what lateralized alpha indicates), I am concerned that these null findings could just as well be explained other ways, such as the inherent noisiness of EEG analyses, potentially low reliable variation in the memory benefits from retro-cues, or that amplitude differences (not topographical changes) reflect attention-to-memory. While the present results do suggest that this particular method of quantifying lateralized alpha variation isn’t a very good way of discriminating when or for whom retro-cues improve memory in this particular task, it does not follow that differences in alpha lateralization more broadly are not generated by a neural process that is involved in prioritizing memory representations. Below are some specific concerns that should help to explain my scepticism.

1.	A small behavioural retro-cuing effect. The concentration contrast between no-cue and cue, while significant, is modest in that even no-cue trials exhibit very high precision (>25) and very low guessing, meaning that memory is always quite good, but just a little better with a cue. Given this very high degree of memory accuracy, ceiling effects a bit of a concern, and indeed the retro-cuing effect has only small-medium effect sizes for all affected memory parameters (d = 0.35  - 0.4). It’s possible that a larger retro-cuing effect (potentially achieved by increasing the number of to-be-remembered objects) could reveal a connection between lateralized alpha and performance on cued trial.
2.	A need to establish meaningful variability in behavioural retro-cuing effects. To convincingly argue that lateralized alpha oscillations are not actually related by directing attention to a memory, it is necessary to establish that there is a healthy amount of variability (trial-to-trial or individual-to-individual) in attention to memory that can be reliably measured behaviourally. This is important, as it could be that attention-to-memory in these data are highly consistent across people and trials, which would permit measurement of an average difference in lateralized alpha on cued trials rather than uncued trials, but would not permit not the detection of covariation in memory performance on cued trials with lateralized alpha on cued trials. To do this, one has to separate measurement error from true variability caused by the latent process (attention-to-memory) to quantify the latter. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be an opportunity to assess the reliability of trial-to-trial variability in the retro-cuing, but perhaps some estimate of individual-to-individual reliability could be estimated using data from the separate sessions?
3.	Median splitting dilutes power. Although median splits are simple to implement, they are not the best approach when sensitivity needs to be maximized. Median splits mean that observations (whether they are trials or observers) that fall in the mid-range of a distribution are included in both low- and high- groups, diluting the influence of the extreme scores that would drive a difference.
4.	Imperfect classification. While being able to correctly classify the direction of a retro-cue from EEG on average 61% of the time is impressive, it does suggest there is a considerable amount of noise in the signal being used to predict behavioural performance. Surely, it is not expected that on trials that are mis-classified, participants are actually attending to the wrong hemifield, leading to classification in the opposite direction of that trial’s label. Instead, if ~40 of trials are incorrect guesses, then shouldn’t ~40% be correct guesses as well (given a left/right choice)? This would mean that on average, only about 20% of classifications can be confidently attributed to signal. This is good enough for establishing a non-zero relationship between lateralized alpha and the retro-cue (note that there is zero noise in the condition labels being predicted, as they are experimenter-determined), but probably not enough for establishing the absence of a relationship between lateralized alpha and performance (which certainly contains variability), unless the to-be-predicted effect is large to make up for the noise in the predictor variable. It is also worth noting that the direction of the participant-to-participant differences are in the right direction (shallower slopes for concentration effect for bad than good participants, less mean bias as well).
5.	Specific approach. To be convinced that lateralized alpha has truly no connection to attention-to-memory, it is also important to demonstrate that other methods of evaluating this relationship also fail. The authors have tested one of what seem quite a few methods of quantifying lateralized alpha, finding no evidence it can predict memory performance on retro-cue trials. Perhaps that conclusion is specific to this approach? In particular, this quantification of lateralized alpha relies specifically on variation in its topography. A simpler approach would be to compare whether variability in the overall ipsi-contra alpha power instead predicts the behavioural measures of attention-to-memory. This is especially worth considering given that it is the variability in overall lateralized alpha power (not topography) that is associated with the retro-cuing effect (here and elsewhere).

One minor query: the authors report a 2x2 (good/weak trial X cue/no-cue) ANOVA in their between-trials alpha analysis, but I am not sure how good/bad lateralization was determined for no-cue trials. Can this be clarified?


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: LATERALIZED ALPHA OSCILLATIONS ARE IRRELEVANT FOR THE BEHAVIORAL RETRO-CUEING BENEFIT IN VISUAL WORKING MEMORY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comments
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: no comments
Additional comments: The authors did a great job replying to my comments. I have no further 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: LATERALIZED ALPHA OSCILLATIONS ARE IRRELEVANT FOR THE BEHAVIORAL RETRO-CUEING BENEFIT IN VISUAL WORKING MEMORY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Already good.
Experimental design: Already good.
Validity of the findings: Improved communication.
Additional comments: The authors have done an excellent job addressing my concerns; I admit that I am pleasantly surprised how much they were able to adequately address. I appreciate their sensitivity in interpreting null results, and the further work they have done to consider and address alternative explanations. Having demonstrated good reliability and variability in both measures makes the null findings quite a bit more convincing. As such, I now feel this paper will be an excellent addition to the literature and stimulate useful experimentation and theorizing about the cognitive function of lateralized posterior alpha.


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: MODELLING FATALITY CURVES OF COVID-19 AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well written and presented.
Experimental design: The authors fit Richard's model to cumulative death data of COVID-19. This is a rather flexible family of curves that can be fitted to practically any sigmoid curve, and cumulative epidemic data often (but not always) have a sigmoid shape.
This is a basic exercise in curve fitting and does not provide any insight to the nature of the epidemic. Since it is a phenomenological model, it is very strange to interpret a change in parameters as interventions. Interventions should modify the mechanisms of disease spread in certain ways, but such mechanisms are not considered here. Even worse, in reality there were a sequence of progressively applied interventions in each of the considered countries.
Validity of the findings: There are no real scientific findings in this article. The Richard's model spectaculartly fails on Korean data (which was not presented here).
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: MODELLING FATALITY CURVES OF COVID-19 AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I find the basic reporting of the study to be very descriptive and realistic. It made
me feel that I had a good understanding of what was going to be examined. The language of writing is easy to understand even to the audience outside computational/mathematical modeling field.
Experimental design: It's interesting to see the modeling the COVID-19 development of several countries in different stages, including China, Italy and Iran, which brings a nice selection of target subjects.

I believe it would be also reasonable if you could include more countries like Singapore and/or South Korea, especially in the "intervention" part of the experiment, as these countries have taken relevant approaches to control the virus situation
Validity of the findings: I believe that the findings are valid, but the further significance needs to be considered. Is there existing experiments with similar approaches, in dealing with COVID-19 or even non-COVID-19 respiratory infectious disease like influenza? From my point of view, an extra content comparing the current research with other relevant modelings of respiratory infectious disease would be of great help to shed light to the community fighting against the COVID-19.
Additional comments: The current manuscript described the  of establishment of a mathematical/computational model of the COVID-19 in aspects of fatality and how it respond to  interventional strategies. I believe it's a well written article and it follows nicely to the scope of PeerJ journal publication. The topic is interesting and it could help improve the understanding of the disease development and provide sights to prevention and responding measures. I believe the the submission would be of significance to the community fighting against COVID-19, and how helps draw the attention of disease/disaster response community to the computer science and simulation world.


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: MODELLING FATALITY CURVES OF COVID-19 AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper follows a format close to the Standard structure, there is a background section but no Introduction replaced with a Background section and the materials section replaced with a section data. It might be worth reverting to having an introduction rather than background section to emphasise the point that this paper is about assessing interventions rather than predicting the course of specific outbreaks and that those fits are designed to validate the use of the RGM. In general, however, the structure is logical and clear, the language is approachable and appropriated, there are sufficient references.
The figures are reasonable, though the use of blue and red will make it difficult for those who need to print and view the papers in black and white. Using colours which have different intensities or different line types or widths, or symbols might help with this.
The raw data has been supplied and the code is correct.

Line 85 – confirmed deaths are more reliable, but “much more reliable” is a strong statement and would need some justification, particularly given that the discussion suggests that timing is critical and there are known to be variable delays in the reporting of deaths
Experimental design: Whilst based on a mathematical model, the focus of the manuscript is on the use of that model to investigate interventions into a pandemic thus it fits well with the scope of the journal. The subject is topical and the research timely. The algebra and code are correct and the model is well described in plain and comprehensible language.
In terms of interventions, there are two aims: to reduce the speed of an epidemic (or flatten the curve) and to reduce the size (total number of cases). This manuscript covers the second type of intervention and it would be helpful if this distinction were highlighted.

Line 111 & Equation 8 Given that a dash is being used to denote post-intervention parameters, it might be clearer to use a dot to denote differentials.

It’s a small point, but efficiency is referred to as a proportion in the text but displayed as a percentage. It would be helpful to pick one and stick with it.
Validity of the findings: Line 146 The fit to the data from China as published on 1 April is excellent, but they have just revised the death toll up by almost 50%. The authors state that purpose of these fits is simply to establish the RGM as a reasonable model for the progression of the disease rather than as a predictive tool, so  this change doesn’t impact the validity of the findings, but in order to forestall misreporting of the paper it would be helpful to have that made clearer in the discussion of the paper.

Whilst the algebra is correct, it seems counter-intuitive that increasing the intrinsic rate of increase (r) leads to greater efficiency and it would be helpful to see some discussion of what is occurring here.

Line 193 & 199 It would be helpful to have some justification for the parameters chosen for r and alpha in figure 4 because alpha has values that differ by 0.6 and r has values that differ by 0.1. The statement that altering alpha has a greater effect is hard to justify given the disparity between the ranges of values tested. The rationale behind the choices made and for the comparisons really needs to be explained.

Line 218: The authors state that there is a narrow window for interventions to be effective. This is a strong statement and rather implies a cut off time whereas the model supports a statement about effectiveness tailing off. Rapidity is a judgement call and it would be more useful to discuss the timescale of efficiency reduction than a strong but somewhat vague statement.

Figure 4 would be improved by combining all lines onto one graph and representing the mitigation and suppression strategies with a different line type. It appears to represent and interesting point that even right at the beginning of an outbreak when, r is considered to dominate the dynamics, a strategy of suppression appears to have more effect.
Additional comments: This is a timely and helpful manuscript which uses a well understood model to look at how interventions with different effects on the spread of the disease might affect the total number of cases in a pandemic outbreak. There is no suggestion as to what the interventions might be, but the model serves to highlight what outcomes should be sought. The methods are clearly described as are the implications. The authors make some fairly strong claims and these need further justification as described 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: MODELLING FATALITY CURVES OF COVID-19 AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors conducted a simulation study on “Modelling fatality curves of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of intervention strategies”.  They employed two simple mathematical models and fitted to fatality data in order to investigate the characteristics of fatality curves of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of intervention strategies in five different countries; China, Italy, Spain, Iran, and Brazil. Their study can provide a critical/useful tool for the effectiveness analysis of emerging infectious diseases like COVID-19. However, some critical points from mathematical and epidemiological aspects should be considered for publication in PeerJ.
Experimental design: They used the Richards growth model for China, Italy, Spain, and Iran and the generalized growth model for Brazil (the early stage of epidemics).
Their  mathematical models (the Richards growth model (RGM) and generalized growth model) are too simple to capture country-specific COVID-19 transmission dynamics and also country-specific fatalities in the five countries.  A mathematical model should be novel enough to explain country-specific confirmed cases and fatality cases. The characteristics of key components in transmission dynamics of COVID-19 should be distinct in each country; for example, population structure (age, ethnic ratios, etc),  transmissions (social interactions, clustering etc), interventions (medical infra structures etc), epidemiological features (incubation, infectious periods etc) are very distinct.
Validity of the findings: Authors should further investigate clear relations between infected (confirmed) cases and fatality cases (again, country-specific analysis should be done). The impacts of Interventions such as social distancing, quarantine and intensive treatment (hospitalized) are different on infected cases and fatality cases. This issue also needs to be validated as well. Therefore, it is insufficient  for the validity of the epidemic outputs based on the two models the authors suggested.  Therefore, the authors should clearly state significant contributions of epidemiological aspects using proper mathematical models.
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: MODELLING FATALITY CURVES OF COVID-19 AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The quality of the manuscript has significantly improved and more comprehensive after the revision, especially by including more countrys and longer time in the modeling.


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: MODELLING FATALITY CURVES OF COVID-19 AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No  Comment
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: No Comment
Additional comments: The manuscript has bee revised in the light of the reviewers comments and the clarity of the message much improved. The findings remain valid and the links to mechanistic models set the work solidly in context. The simplicity of the model and language make the manuscript accessible to those making policy decisions around new outbreaks of disease.


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: ORGANIC EUTROPHICATION INCREASES RESISTANCE OF THE PULSATING SOFT CORAL XENIA UMBELLATA TO WARMING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 2: This study should be cited as “This study” rather than “Vollstedt, 2019”. Haas et al. (2009) is missing in the reference list and checking their paper seems that they added 110 mg/L glucose and not 55mg/L (55 g was added to 500L). Importantly, this study shows a positive effect of glucose addition on pulsation rates, growth and survival of X. umbellata when combined with ocean warming only. Please specify this nuance and add a “neutral” implication for glucose addition at ambient temperature. If possible, please include the temperature used in the studies on hard corals.

Figure 1: What does the 26°C treatment in the right panel represent? Is it a mean of the left panel?

Figure 2: Please provide visual statistical results if they are significant.
Experimental design: MATERIALS AND METHODS
General comment: Please provide information about the geographical origin about the soft coral species and also about how was the species was identified?

Line 131: Check the unit or number of the light intensity. 2918.4 µmol quanta m-2 s-1 seems extremely high. With what kind of sensor was the light intensity measured?

Lines 158-160: Change to: “the light intensity measured as lx was converted to….”

Lines 160-162: You mention changes of additional 2.0°C according the IPCC report but your highest temperature delta is 6.0°C. There is something unclear here. Do you maybe refer to a seasonal temperature in a specific place? If yes, please develop.

Line 184: Please replace “whereas” by a linking word that does not express a contrast.
Line: 181-185: Indicate that for each timepoint and each temperature an individual ANOVA was performed. Were the assumptions for an ANOVA checked a priori? Please include.

RESULTS
Line 189-191: Please report the measured C concentrations in the tanks including means with standard deviations. Here you provide levels of glucose measured. Did you really measured glucose? I assume it was TOC with the Shimadzu analyser.

Fourth paragraph “Growth rates”: Would you have any pictures showing the new polyps? This is an interesting finding. However the information lines 215-216: “i.e. growth rates were declining with increasing glucose concentrations” should not be stated that way since the growth rates in the glucose addition treatment were higher than the control. Is there any statistics to be displayed here?

Line 219: “increased” is confusing. I’d rather suggest the use of “maintained”.

Line 224 and discussion: If there are no significant differences between treatments for all temperatures, is glucose addition really counterbalancing the detrimental effects of warming? Negative growth rates were measured at 30°C for the control but the control was again positive at 32°C whereas the glucose addition treatments ranged from negative to slightly positive...
Validity of the findings: ABSTRACT
Line 32: “increasing organic eutrophication” should be “increasing water temperature” as pulsation rates were not different between the 3 glucose treatments but decreased with increasing T.

INTRODUCTION
Lines 56-58: This sentence should be split into two to ensure a clear understanding. Please specify what ”important” means to you.
Lines 72: Please explain shortly why bacteria contribute to the functioning of coral holobionts.

Line 74: “microbes enhance their growth with sugar addition”. Please include why is this detrimental for corals (e.g. hypoxia, proliferation of pathogenic bacteria….)
Line 83: Please explain: A very SPECIAL soft coral…

Line 102: Rather talk about resistance than “resilience”. We usually talk about resilience when investigating the recovery to a stress.

DISCUSSION
-	First part
Line 230: Replace health status with polyp growth rates.
Line 235: “during” should be “at”

Lines 234-236: If the comparison of all treatments at ambient temperature did not show statistical difference, just state that the growth rates were positive and similar. Otherwise, please clarify this sentence.

Line 236-245: The Kline 2006 study points mainly towards increased growth rate of microbes living in the corals’ surface mucopolysaccharide layer in response to sugar addition. They then suggest that coral mortality occurs due to a disruption of the balance between the coral and its associated microbiota. Soft coral mucus is known to have very high antimicrobial properties. I wonder if it could it also be that the sugar-induced growth of potentially pathogenic bacteria in the soft coral mucus is lower as compared to hard corals? And thus, sugar addition may have a less detrimental effects on soft corals under these specific experimental conditions.

Lines 238-241: It could be interesting to state what the genus of Symbiodiniaceae harbored by your corals was here. Is it possible to develop this part a bit more?
Lines 242-245: Could you please specify the direction of changes you mention here for photosynthetic and nutrient cycling properties? Cite the table 2.

Lines 249-250 and 277 should be “from photo-autotrophy to mixotrophy”? Or something similar but primarily photo-autotrophically is not correct and heavy.
Line 255: Soft corals may have poor predatory apparatus compared to hard corals but that does not mean they cannot feed on particulate organic matter such as phytoplankton, labile detritus, microzooplankton and bacteria (Fabricius and Dommisse, 2000).

Line 259: This makes sense but have you measured the turbidity? Also please replace “in” by “during the last week of the experiment”.

Line 260: Modify to “the ability of soft corals”

Line 263-264: Please specify that these sentences are stated for 26°C only. Was this decrease significant? Regarding Figure 2, increased glucose treatments 1) did not show decreased growth rates and 2) the highest glucose concentration always exhibited a positive growth rate for all temperatures, on the contrary to the lowest glucose concentration…

-	Second part
Line 266: Please use another word than “resilience” here and throughout the manuscript.
Lines 268-273: Are there any other report of pulsation change under other environmental conditions? A comparison could be interesting to further discuss the choice of Xeniidae pulsation as early warning signal and to eventually extend it beyond warming temperatures.
Line 274: Please nuance this sentence. Is there no report on bleaching in pulsating soft coral species? See Styrchar et al. (2005).
Line 285: You mean “heterotrophic feeding” or “autotrophic disruptions”?
Lines 301-303: “colonies previously exposed to eutrophication” confuses the reader and made me wonder whether the exposure to glucose has stopped after the temperature increase? Please clarify.
Line 307: This is not a contradiction since hard and soft corals are very different organisms. However it is in contradiction to studies reporting decline of soft corals exposed to eutrophication on the field.
Lines 309-311: Could you please modify this sentence to ensure a clearer understanding?

-	Third part
General comment: It could be maybe nice to add information of areas that have encountered phase-shift to Xeniidae, what triggered a change in the community structure and to primarily focus on Xeniidae details before talking about soft corals in general.
Lines 324-327: Talking about “immunity” regarding the resistance of soft corals to acidification is an overstatement (for example see Inoue et al., 2013). Please clarify.
Line 330: “soft corals respond differently”
Line 334-342: This last paragraph could be complemented. It is written following what could involve a loss of hard corals to the ecosystem, with a focus on the structure and mucus release. It would gain interest if information referring to soft corals is added in comparison. For example, does soft coral not provide any function to the ecosystem? What is the trend of mucus release of soft corals to the reef environment (Bednarz et al., 2012)? What are other parameters that could be affected by a take-over of soft corals (e.g. biogeochemical cycles)?
Additional comments: General comments:
This study measured pulsation and growth rates of a tropical common soft coral species in response to glucose addition and elevated seawater temperatures. Pulsating soft coral species are representatives of an important group of coral reef invertebrates which are largely overlooked. As such, the work furthers our understanding of the ecophysiology of soft corals. The study documents a neutral effect of glucose addition at ambient temperature on the survival, growth and pulsation of the colonies. Under increased temperatures, the authors revealed a beneficial effect of glucose addition to the survival and pulsation measurements. Interestingly, they suggest the pulsation rates to be an early warning signal of ocean warming effect on Xeniidae. The paper is well written and the information documented is of interests for PeerJ readers. I would however suggest some changes or information to be further discussed before acceptance.
My main points target:
1.	A statement regarding growth rates to be improved for better clarity.
2.	Physiological parameters investigated here are survival, growth and pulsation. The discussion would gain even more interest if report of bleaching (or not) between the treatments could be added.
3.	Addition of information on Xeniidae before extrapolating to soft corals in general and further discussing differences between hard and soft corals.


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: ORGANIC EUTROPHICATION INCREASES RESISTANCE OF THE PULSATING SOFT CORAL XENIA UMBELLATA TO WARMING
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript addresses revenant and highly significant questions related to the effects of organic eutrophication on the resilience of a soft coral under ocean warming conditions. This topic is of significance as the existing evidence and predictions indicate shift in structure of benthic communities on coral reefs, manifested by decrease in hard coral  abundance and a transition toward soft corals, algae and sponges. The manuscript experimentally tests the individual and the combined effects of both eutrophication and temp. rise and revealed some novel phenological response of a soft coral. The study lacks an overall hypothesis, yet addresses specific questions (Line 100-103). Surprisingly, the authors do not refer to studies showing resilience of soft corals to ocean acidification (e.g.,   https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1855) which are highly relevant to the topic. .
Experimental design: In general, the Material and Methods section is clear and it provides the required information. However, the experimental set up does not mention the geographic origin of the colonies and the environmental conditions under which they have been maintained since collection from the reef (line 110-120). These details might have affected the results of the experiments.
The authors do not explain why the pulsation was recorder at about noon time (line 169), has it been any reason for that? Similarly, why after day 7 the pulsation was only counted for 30 seconds (line  171-72). And more generally, how the time duration was determined?
This section, as well other sections, in the text erroneously mix up the terms "physiological data" (line 119) and "ecological assessments" (line 164). I couldn't find in this manuscript any real physiological results, unless the authors refer to pulsation as such. Yet, the authors did not show the physiological response of the soft coral. In short, the authors mix up phenological results with lack of physiological ones.

.
Validity of the findings: The presented results are meaningful and rather robust but as has already been stated above they are not always presented in the relevant context.

The authors should better explain how the have scored the damage to the colonies. (line 193-198) Mortality is an obvious stage, but for sublethal effects on the colonies I would expect further details.
The findings could have been much more convincing if physiological parameters were tested. Within the duration of the experiment, it can be assumed that symbiont (zooxanthellae) count and chlorophyll concentration would provide significant  physiological criteria and probably substantiating the major findings and the emerged patterns. At present, the phenology of the tested soft coral supports the overall goal of the manuscript, but certainly it still lacks supportive evidence based on physiological or eco-physiological grounds (e.g., line 31). Similarly, the phenological results do not support lack of "disturbance of the soft coral holobiont" (line 233-234). Only after a thorough examination of the symbiotic algae (zooxanthella) such a conclusion can be presented. Saying that, the first paragraph of the discussion (line 288 onwards, especially lines 241-245), may provide supportive evidence in the current study for answering the first question (line 228-129).
The second question (line 266 onwards) is a critical one and the phenological results suggest that glucose addition supports Xenia to maintain growth and increase the ability to withstand the effect of elevated temp. (line 303-306). However, the authors ignore the critical and pressing issue that increased anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere results in a concurrent increase in sea surface temperatures (SST) and reduced seawater pH. Indeed, SST is predicted to rise by 1- 4 °C by the end of the 21st century by the continuous uptake of CO2 by the ocean’s surface alters the seawater carbonate system.  Only, understanding the combined effects of the predicted end-of-the-century SST and pH conditions on a greater number of organisms, including soft corals, is therefore of great importance for predicting the fate of coral reefs. The manuscript does not refer to this point, but focuses on eutrophication and temperature.
Additional comments: In light of the above comments, it is suggested to alter the overall context of the manuscript  and rewrite it in a context of phenological response of a soft coral to both studied parameters. Then, the significance of the study should reflect the results also using the appropriate and relevant terms. Not much is known on the effect of global change on soft corals compared to stony corals therefore the results presented in the current manuscript are significant. However, they can be considered for publication only when presented in a correct context.


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: ORGANIC EUTROPHICATION INCREASES RESISTANCE OF THE PULSATING SOFT CORAL XENIA UMBELLATA TO WARMING
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors responded to all my comments. Their rebuttal letter is comprehensive and refers to all the points.
However, I still have some comments as listed below:
1. The authors indicate that the tested colonies were originally collected in the Red Sea. This region extends along >15 latitudinal degrees and represents a variety of environmental parameters, including nutrient levels. Therefore, a more precise location where the colonies were obtained should be included in this manuscript: e.g., .Journal of Biogeography (2016) 43, 423–439; Mar Biodiv (2017) 47:991–993.,

2. Please note that "spp." shouldn't be in italic.
3. I think that the following two references are directly related to the study and should be incorporated into the text:
Y. Gabay, M. Fine, Z. Barkay, Y. Benayahu
Octocoral tissue provides protection from declining oceanic Ph
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091553
PLoS ONE, Vol. 9, 2014 (e91553)

Y. Gabay, Y. Benayahu, M. Fine
Does elevated pCO2 affect reef octocorals?
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.351
Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 3, 2012 (pp. 465-473)
Experimental design: See above
Validity of the findings: See above
Additional comments: See abov


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: WHOLE-GENOME SEQUENCE ANALYSES OF GLAESSERELLA PARASUIS ISOLATES REVEALS EXTENSIVE GENOMIC VARIATION AND DIVERSE ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE DETERMINANTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The language is clear and unambiguous.
Although Table 1 is important, it is too long for the reader. Unless it could be shown in a figure, the table can be shown in the supplemental files.
Experimental design: The substitution models were not mentioned in the section of methods.
Validity of the findings: 1. No bootstrap values in Figure 2 and Figure 6.
2. The quality the NGS results were missing, such as N50 and sequencing depth.
Additional comments: In the manuscript, Wan et al. has performed a whole genome sequence analysis of Glaesserella parasuis from different isolate. They also described the genomic features of those isolate, and found that a new transposon and plasmid which coffered resistance. They also performed phylogetics analysis to see the cluster of isolate with different background, and therefore showed the diversity of the accessory genes.  In general, this manuscript is well designed and clearly written, although some minor revisions should be made before acceptance.


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: WHOLE-GENOME SEQUENCE ANALYSES OF GLAESSERELLA PARASUIS ISOLATES REVEALS EXTENSIVE GENOMIC VARIATION AND DIVERSE ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE DETERMINANTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This study provided a valuable information of the whole-genome sequencing analysis of Glaesserella parasuis isolates.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: The results provided important information for pathogenesis and treatment of G. parasuis in the future.
Additional comments: In this manuscript, the authors provided a valuable information of the whole-genome sequencing analysis of Glaesserella parasuis isolates. I believe this paper article provided important information for pathogenesis and treatment of G. parasuis in the future.

Major comments:
1.	This study talk about the antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) and virulence factors, so authors should be give more background of ARGs and virulence factors in introduction part.
2.	Some of figures are too blurry and difficult to read, should be increase the resolution. For example, Fig 2, Fig 3, and Fig 6. Also Fig S1 and Fig S2.
3.	The format of reference is not Peer J, authors should be follow up and updated.


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: WHOLE-GENOME SEQUENCE ANALYSES OF GLAESSERELLA PARASUIS ISOLATES REVEALS EXTENSIVE GENOMIC VARIATION AND DIVERSE ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE DETERMINANTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript describes the WGS analysis of 55 genomes from isolates of G. parasuis, a main pathogen to swine industry. Although there have been other reports on WGS on this particular bacteria, it is important to characterize more isolates where the geographical information together with the pathogenicity to increase the knowledge on this dual bacteria that can be either commensal or pathogenic for the herd.
The phylogenetic analysis plus the antimicrobial and virulence markers are described herein. Moreover, the characterization of a potential new plasmid is done. The background is confusing since many times it’s not clear if the authors are explaining their results or the ones obtained previously (an example would be line 53). There is a clear mistake about the number of strains analyzed in reference 10. Many times the sentences are not connected and it’s difficult to understand the reason why the authors are mentioning the fact. More connection is needed to be flow.
Experimental design: The M&M section is brief and with scarce information, many times including just the references to explain the method used, so it is difficult to follow what the authors have actually done to obtain results (examples are 102-105). (The methods section from the abstract does not report any method either and repeats a background sentence).
The phylogenetic analyses were done with neighbor joining method, however it is not mentioned whether the estimation of the best method was assessed.
I don’t really see the need for including a brief paragraph as supplementary material to include a main method to discover antimicrobial genes (line 123).
Sometimes the methods are mentioned but the detailed analysis remains obscure. Examples of this would be “were aligned… and adjusted manually” (line 128); probably due to communication issues. And “…confirmed by PCR amplification…” primers? Condition? Reference? (line138)
Many times, the reason behind the selection of the method is not stated (the gap open and extent was modified to -400 Line 129).
Validity of the findings: The results & discussion section is not easy to follow either, for multiple reasons. One of them is the lack of information in M&M which makes difficult to understand how the results were obtained. Again, sometimes reported results are actually coming from the literature but is not clear and is mixed with results from this manuscript (example lines 156-161).  Some sentences are not clear (line 163) or hypothesis are not well supported by the results (ex. line 165-167). Figure 1C is difficult to read since the letter are all mixed up in the caption. Sometimes things are selected without mentioning the scientific reason of the selection (line 271).
Additional comments: Some other important things that need to be addressed are:
Were the associations tested with some statistical tests? (lines 178-184 and 190-192).
What is the biological meaning that the SNP and the single-copy core gene trees are consistent?
What about the associations among resistances and geographic location? And antibiotic usage in the particular location?
The importance of bcr gene and the explanation why the analysis was deeper for this particular gene is not clearly mentioned.
Explain why do you suggest “evolution among these small plasmids” (line 299)
“PCR mapping” so you mean PCR amplification? (line 318)
Abbreviation table with the genes mentioned is needed, many abbreviations are not introduced in the text (examples MFS, )
Figures are not clear enough, especially fig 1, 3 and 7 (what has been shaded in grey?).
There is some excess of reporting figures without the clear information that they provide.


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: WHOLE-GENOME SEQUENCE ANALYSES OF GLAESSERELLA PARASUIS ISOLATES REVEALS EXTENSIVE GENOMIC VARIATION AND DIVERSE ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE DETERMINANTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The language is clear and unambiguous.
Experimental design: The experimental design is well presented.
Validity of the findings: The findings is sound and clearly stated.
Additional comments: The manuscript is greatly improved from its previous version, and therefore is suitable for acceptance.


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: WHOLE-GENOME SEQUENCE ANALYSES OF GLAESSERELLA PARASUIS ISOLATES REVEALS EXTENSIVE GENOMIC VARIATION AND DIVERSE ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE DETERMINANTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I think the R1 version is much improved. The reviewer suggests to accept the manuscript.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I think the R1 version is much improved. The reviewer suggests to accept the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: WHOLE-GENOME SEQUENCE ANALYSES OF GLAESSERELLA PARASUIS ISOLATES REVEALS EXTENSIVE GENOMIC VARIATION AND DIVERSE ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE DETERMINANTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This study provided relevant information of different Glaesserella parasuis isolates through WGS analysis.
Experimental design: Most of the  points raised by this reviewer have been addressed
Validity of the findings: Meaningful findings are provided and clearly stated. Conclusions are well stated.
I recommend the authors to use updated MegaX version next time.
Additional comments: The manuscript has noticeably improved with this revision.


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: TROPHIC DEGRADATION PREDISPOSITIONS AND INTENSITY IN A HIGH-FLOW, SILTED RESERVOIR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The relevance of the study is properly managed, the information is clear and very well presented. It enquires in the deterioration of water quality of small reservoirs associated with high sedimentation of external materials, anthropogenic eutrophication and its relationship with the characteristics of the reservoir. However, I suggest to extent its global importance, for example, adding the number of this kind of reservoirs worldwid. Also, take especial consideration to: 1) Complement the results with external load and output information of P (if available). 2) Discus more about a plausible scenario that favors P realize from sediments at this polymictic shallow system. 3) Please add the Chlorophyll data to figure 2 ( if available) .
Experimental design: The description of the study area is complete. It covers the relevant aspects of the reservoir. I would recommend, if data are available, to add external P loads and outputs, sedimentation rates over time, especially after dredging operations.
Validity of the findings: 3 Results
Results of natural susceptibility to degradation do to its morphometric and hydrological characteristics and its trophic state are clearly stated. However, at the introduction mentioned the great relevance of sedimentation of suspended inflowing material and the allochthonous river-sediment transport to water quality and in the results this aspect seems lost. I highly recommend to add more information about inputs and outputs of P during time and then compare them with the possible internal source.
A relevant result is the difference between EPC-0 under aerobic and anoxic conditions. However, your oxygen results do not suggest an anoxia scenario could take place at this reservoir. I was wondering if with these results is possible to estimate a more realistic oxygen concentration that enhance the release of phosphorous. Could you give an estimation of the potential internal load Phosphorous?
4 Tables
In general, they are appropriate, I only suggest to make a more notorious division between columns and units, because they could be a little bit confusing, especially in table 5.
I recommend that  table 5 should be edited by changing de TP column before the percentage of species of P in order to make it more comfortable for readers.

5 Figures
The figures looks fine, I would recommend to ad chlorophyll graph to figure 2 to complement and strengthen the results.

5 Conclusions & Perspectives
 First paragraph visibly explains how the morphological and hydrological characteristics of the reservoir and anthropogenic activities prone deterioration of water quality. Even second paragraph is well structured, it seems not concluding results at all. Does the obtained data can be used to estimate the amount of sediments that should be dragged in order to improve the water quality?
Additional comments: In general, the paper is enjoyable  to read, it is well structured and written. However, I recommend to double check it specially, units (e.g. Line 87 and line 167) and to change the writing of line 71 to 75, because it is quite similar to the abstract.


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: TROPHIC DEGRADATION PREDISPOSITIONS AND INTENSITY IN A HIGH-FLOW, SILTED RESERVOIR
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Review of Manuscript Number:  #44688
The manuscript  "Predispositions and intensity of trophic degradation of the highly flow, silted reservoir" by L. Bartoszek et al.  presents the results of research on trophic degradation of Rzeszów Reservoir as an example of small reservoir located in areas with high anthropopressure. The large number of this type of water reservoirs and numerous problems related to maintaining good quality of water collected in them motivate us to conduct continuous research in this area. The authors' comprehensive view on factors influencing the trophic degradation of the studied reservoir should be emphasized. The research were carried out based on standard methods, but results are interesting. Unfortunately, these manuscripts require significant corrections and supplementation by literature in particular "Introduction" and presentation of results obtained against the background of broader literature that goes beyond Polish literature.
Reviewer recommendation: Major revision
Experimental design: The natural susceptibility to degradation water reservoir was evaluated on the base of two procedures (line 112-117) by Bajkiewicz-Grabowska 1987, 2010;and Markowski, Kwidzinska 2015. This works are published in English,but are known and used generally only in Poland. Both procedures should be thoroughly described.
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Review of Manuscript Number:  #44688
The manuscript  "Predispositions and intensity of trophic degradation of the highly flow, silted reservoir" by L. Bartoszek et al.  presents the results of research on trophic degradation of Rzeszów Reservoir as an example of small reservoir located in areas with high anthropopressure. The large number of this type of water reservoirs and numerous problems related to maintaining good quality of water collected in them motivate us to conduct continuous research in this area. The authors' comprehensive view on factors influencing the trophic degradation of the studied reservoir should be emphasized. The research were carried out based on standard methods, but results are interesting. Unfortunately, these manuscripts require significant corrections and supplementation by literature in particular "Introduction" and presentation of results obtained against the background of broader literature that goes beyond Polish literature.
Reviewer recommendation: Major revision
Specific comments
The literature used in this article should be supplemented.
Line 37-38: "...,as associated with a rapid reduction in capacity" - too much simplification, please expand.
Line 50-52: no reference to literature.
Line 61-63: EPC-0 - the most common abbreviation of Equilibrium Phosphorus Concentration is EPC0. The EPC0 is defined as the concentration of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) in solution which, when placed in contact with sediment, produces no net sorption or desorption of soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) over a period of 24 h. The EPC0 method was presented much earlier than the cited literature. Please provide relevant literature.
Line 87: Please indicate the initial and current Rzeszow Reservoir volume and its percentage change.
Line 97-101: Please specify the slope of the river bed from its source to the reservoir. Difference in water level in meters don't give information. The structure of land use in the reservoir's catchment area should be supplemented too.
Line 112-117: The natural susceptibility to degradation water reservoir was evaluated on the base of two procedures known only in Poland. Although these (Bajkiewicz-Grabowska 1987, 2010; Markowski, Kwidzinska 2015) works are published in English, are not cited in the wider literature. Both procedures should be discussed in more detail and thoroughly described.
Line 131: SMT ?? All abbreviations should be explained before their first use.
Line 190-192; 193-195: no reference to literature.


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

Input:
Title: TROPHIC DEGRADATION PREDISPOSITIONS AND INTENSITY IN A HIGH-FLOW, SILTED RESERVOIR
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Nothing to add
Experimental design: Nothing to add
Validity of the findings: Nothing to add
Additional comments: Thanks to taking into account the comments of reviewers, the manuscript reflects more clearly your hypothesis. Congratulations for your work.