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: NCOV2019: AN R PACKAGE FOR STUDYING THE COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The article « nCov2019: An analytics tool for studying the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic » is an article to present the R package nCov2019. The package intends to provide a way of accessing historical COVID19 data directly from R and to provide analysis tools in the form of a shiny application and plot functions. The package is available through github and works, the features presented can be reproduced.
The literature is succinct, and almost no reference to other dataset or dashboard is provided (Apart from WHO and John Hopkins).
The authors mention the blog post https://www.statsandr.com/blog/top-r-resources-on-covid-19-coronavirus/ which refers to 39 shiny app about COVID and 8 other R packages about COVID19 data. The authors should at least refer to them and comment on the difference.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: While I appreciate the effort and the work done, I have several strong critics, that I would summarize in the following points:

1.	The main point is that I do not see the novelty of what is proposed here. Several historical datasets are easily available in one command line in R, and plenty of advanced visualization tools are now available, which are not cited in the manuscript. The authors only cite the John Hopkins dataset, but do not compare their tools and dataset with this one, nor do they clarify the novelty of the proposed tool.

2.	The grammar of the R package is not clear. The package is not published on the CRAN, and the documentation to succinct to help

3.	There are multiple problems with the vizualisation tools, especially with the shiny app (wrong scales, missing interactivity on maps, missing axis legend, errors on data selection etc). The local app and the online ones are not the same at all. The online app is extremely slow. The overall impression is that the app is not finished nor properly checked.

4.	Some indicators are strongly problematic, namely the growth rates, which are calculated on a daily basis when it is known that the cases fluctuate strongly on a daily basis. Some other are undefined and unknown, like the health rate. The prediction given by forecast are rather uninformative, and not based on any epidemiological background.

5.	The data number are different from other institutional COVID19 dataset, and I do not see any comments about it, nor validation or comparison of the present dataset with other institutional dataset.

The first four points are critical for me. Points 2, 3 and 4 would require as subsequent work, as the overall impression is that the package is not finished and rather in a “work in progress” stage. The first point is essential and from what is presented here, I do not think that the package bring something new concerning visualization or data about COVID19. I would therefore not recommend publication in peerJ, and advise the authors to target a R specific publication when the package is finished and made available on CRAN

The detail of each point is given in the attached pdf
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: NCOV2019: AN R PACKAGE FOR STUDYING THE COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article « nCov2019: An analytics tool for studying the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic » is an article to present the R package nCov2019. The package intends to provide a way of accessing historical COVID19 data directly from R and to provide analysis tools in the form of a shiny application and plot functions. The authors made substantial changes during their first review, improving both their manuscript and package, and include now important new features, such as vaccine list, or the possibility to generate animation from map plots. Despite these improvements, there are still majors problems in the author's article and package: the package is still not on CRAN, thus unable to guaranty interoperability across platforms and changes continuity; the comparison with other R package (submitted on CRAN) providing similar tools and data is not done; there is no mention of ourworldindata data explorer and dataset in intro or discussion; the access of province historical data is not integrated in the package syntax anymore; the package documentation is too succint or absent for most of the R functions; the dashboard has still  multiple flaws. I therefore ask for major revisions.
It seems that the authors did not read the associated pdf of my previous review, which contained the detail of each of my points with associated print screen. I will this time put all the detail in the present review.
Experimental design: - I understand that the authors feel that a github repository is enough, but I still insist that a CRAN submission should be required before the acceptance of the current paper. The authors actually gave an example of this necessity, by moving their package from https://github.com/GuangchuangYu/nCov2019 to https://github.com/YuLab-SMU/nCov2019. Here, users that want to update the package will not get the latest version. Furthermore, CRAN is a guaranty that the package works on all platforms, respects some standards about documentation and vignettes, and has a proper documentation of changes. But I agree that, as for any CRAN package, a github repository is needed for issues handling and development. The submission to CRAN only take few days.
Validity of the findings: - My first point was already mention in my previous review (attached pdf): the authors do not mention ourworldindata.org, which is one of the main data source in the world about COVID19 pandemic (with CSSE), with a complete data explorer containing an important amount of variable selection, maps, possibility to compare countries and to select dates, possibility to have animations etc: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer. Furthermore, they have a single complete dataset of historical data in long format of all their variable accessible on a fixed url, updated daily, and so accessible directly in R in a single command line:
"x <- read.csv("https://covid.ourworldindata.org/data/owid-covid-data.csv") "
Which is something equivalent to
"library(nCov2019)
res <- query()
x <- res$historical" .
This should be discussed, and the author's sentence "However, to accessed complete data from online source, users need to crawl, parse and store info from their web pages. Additional manual check, data conversion and data clean are required before the data can be used in analysis or model fitting" in the author manuscript should be removed, and the novelty description of the package should be updated.

- The authors did not discuss in intro the difference between their work and existing R package on the same subject already published in CRAN (some with associated peer reviewed paper). Among others: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/COVID19/index.html ; https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/coronavirus/index.html ; https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/covid19.analytics/index.html

I will focus the rest of my review on the tool presented, as it is the core of the article. Here are the majors points:

- Although the syntax of the package is easier to understand now, the ability to get the province from the dataset using the "[]" syntax described in the manuscript disappeared. The user has to guess and find that "res$historical$province" provide a data.frame with province data (this is not described in vignette), on which "x["beijing"]" does not work for example. Furthermore, the list of countries with province changed: I get
"Australia"   "Canada"      "China"       "Denmark"     "France"      "Netherlands", but can't see Italia nor US.

- The documentation entry for "query" has virtually no information: the output is not described. More generally, the documentation of the package is globally to succinct (no example in doc entries, no description of the output of the function, etc)

- the dashboard has several problems. As the added value that the authors want to give to their work is the possibility to inspect the data, several improvements and corrections are needed:
1) The maps are not interactive. As suggested in my previous review, the authors should at least use leaflet in their shinyapps, so that the user can zoom in and out and get information when hovering the countries.
2) there is not date selection on the dashboard for the map
3) The files to download are with .tsv extension instead of .csv
4) The fact that the death, active case and positive case cumulated are on the same scale does not allow to see the death trend properly.
5)The activeperillion and deathpermillion plots have no x axis, and the y axis should be understandable text instead of variable name
6) the correlation plot uses a single color when different color would help to distinguish between countries. Furthermore, the size of the points changes, but the scale of the point size is not indicated
7) The plot with the daily changes indicates in the plotly legend log(diff+1) = 6, without explanation. The y scale is not comprehensible in the present state.
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: NCOV2019: AN R PACKAGE FOR STUDYING THE COVID-19 CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have corrected the manuscript properly.
Experimental design: ok
Validity of the findings: ok
Additional comments: Thank you for the efforts, and for submitting to the CRAN.


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: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF LOPHODERMELLA NEEDLE PATHOGENS (RHYTISMATACEAE) ON PINUS SPECIES IN THE USA AND EUROPE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the ms is clear. I noticed few parts that need to be clarified.
Table 3 should be rededisgned and improved with more information.
Major point is about the working hypothesis. They need to be restated in something more clear and precise. Please, see all the details about that in my general comments below
Experimental design: No major problems with that. I added few suggestion to explore further the data and help presenting the results
Validity of the findings: All required data have been provided. No issue with this point
Additional comments: Review of PeerJ manuscript 57289v1 by Ata et al.
So glad to see this manuscript on this pine-needle disease that is becoming every year more noticeable and problematic. The authors provided a first molecular assessment of the Lophodermella genus (five species out of the nine described), addressing questions about the relationships between the different Lophodermella species and other Rhytismaceae species, and the relevance of morphological characters, to delineate this genus. Another important aspect of this work is the release of the first Lophodermella DNA sequences (3 loci) into public sequence databases, making a reference set for future taxonomical and eDNA studies. One next step will probably be to enrich this first set with DNA sequences from type or voucher specimen from herbaria – but this is not the point here.
Although the manuscript is overall well written and organized, I still have some major points and few questions/suggestions that hopefully will help improving the clarity of the work.

1 - The authors examined relationships between Lophodermella spp. and other Rhytismaceae species. Unfortunately, the loci sequenced are not resolutive enough, and the concatenated tree has a large polytony on its basis. This is recurrent problem with fungal phylogenies (see my comment about the LOD group and L. conjuncta in the next paragraph below) and there is different reasons for that, such as a lack of informative characters, homoplasy… I don’t disagree with the way the authors tackle it on L266 by saying that more sequencing should help, but I think they should explore the problem a bit further by looking at the level of homoplasy in their sequence alignements. One way to reduce homoplasy is to analyse different partitions in protein-coding genes (in this case the EF1 locus). Analyzing only the first and second nucleotides (i.e. discarding the third nucleotide) at each codon in EF1 could result in a tree with higher resolution as these two nucleotides are less prone to multiple and reverse mutations than the third one (because of codon degeneracy).
2 - The rationale for elucidating the phylogenetic relationships between the Lophodermella genus and other Rhytismaceae is not clearly introduced. The authors states in the introduction that they aim “resolve the classification of species closely related to Lophodermella (and the case with Lophophacidium dooksii is well presented) and to “elucidate” the phylogenetic relationships of Lophodermella spp. with other rhytismataceaous species (L92-93). This is OK, but these are very general statements. I think adding a clear hypothesis (or aim) at the end of the introduction would help here. As the genus Lophodermella was defined on the basis of shared morphological characters between species (see L68-70), we would expect that this genus is monophyletic.  Then, a second objective should be added i.e. examining the relationship and diversification withing the Lophodermella genus and if the species delineation following some morphological criteria (which is not discussed) and host specificities (which is discussed in the Discussion section L352). Also, I found it very surprising that the relevance of the morphological criteria that distinguish between Lophodermella species (presented in Table 2) is not discussed in the Discussion section.

3 – Table 3 contains the non-Lophodermella sequences downloaded from NCBI-nr used in this study. On which basis were these species/isolated selected? Are they the only Rhytismaceae  sequences available on NCBI-nr? are they all pine infecting pathogens and/or endophyte. More info about that would be helpful for the understanding of the aims of the authors in using these sequences. In addition, the information about host, disease, lifestyle (if available) should be added in Table 3.

4 - Data obtained by the authors suggest that the Lophodermella genus is polyphyletic. I wasn’t completely buying it (thinking it could just be caused by homoplasy) till I looked in details into the sequences provided in the Supplementary material. At the three loci, L. conjuncta sequences are quite different of other Lophodermella species and share a lot of synapomorphies with other Rhysticimaceae species. I guess, nothing new here: it is not the first time that a fungal genus defined with morphological criteria is broken into different pieces with molecular data. However, I still have few questions/suggestions about that: first, all the phylogenetic trees presented in this manuscript are majority rule consensus trees (generated from the bootstrap analysis). The ML analysis usually results in a “best” tree. What were the “best” tree looking like for each locus? what about the concatenated dataset? was the LOD group and L. conjuncta resolved on a same node? This information can be useful as the “best tree” represents the most likely tree (of all the tested trees) given the data. The best tree should be presented in Figure 2 (instead of a majority rule consensus tree from the Bayesian analysis) and the BS obtained after the bootstrap analysis in ML and the PP from the Bayesian analysis should be reported at each node of the tree. Same thing for Fig. S1 to S3.
In addition, I think that making a new figure or supp. figure showing a matrix of distances (or nucleotide identity) between pairs of species within the Lophodermella genus (for the concatenation of the ITS, LSU and EF1 loci) would be very helpful to convince the reader of this strong “divergence” between species of the LOD group and L. conjuncta; then, the reader wouldn’t had to dig into the sequences as I did. For example, the nucleotide identity in the EF1 loci between species of the LOD group is in the >90% while the identity with L. conjuncta is around 70-80% - this is quite a difference. I’d also suggest to add into the matrix one or two Lophodermium or Elytroderma species as a “control”; I suspect the distance between species of the LOD group and Lophodermium sp. should be in the same range than the distance between species of the LOD group and L. conjuncta.  If that can help, I have one of these distance matrix in one of my old paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0953756209000495?via%3Dihub -  Fig.3).
5 - I really liked the approach (and I think the authors did a great job here) of reconciliating molecular characters with morphological characters by mapping them back to the phylogeny. However, what I do not clearly understand is why it was only done for the whole Rhystimaceae dataset? There are some characters for each Lophordermella species in Table 2. Why not reconstructing a Lophodermella phylogeny rooted with Lophodermium and/or Elytroderma only, and map these morphological characters and host specificities on this new phylogeny (and discuss if they make sense)? In this way, we could see if a dichotomous key based on these morphological characters can be used in practice to ID these different species. As stated above (at the end of point #2) the relevance of the morphological characteristics of each Lophodermella species (Table 2) should be discussed in the light of the phylogenetic results obtained in this study. The authors did a great job in gathering this information in Table 2 and should use it.

Other comments :
L54. P. contorta => Pinus contorta
L56. Pinus contorta => P. contorta
L70. change « a closely » for “the closely”
L91-93. Weird sentence with two ideas in it. “are important in identification”, of what? Please, rewrite.
L91. Which db do you mean by “fungal genetic databases”? Is it NCBI-nr.
L97. What about the four other species. Is it because their distribution doesn’t fit NA and EU (e.g. L orientalis in Asia) and/or they are very uncommon (and you were unable to obtain samples)? A better idea about the host range/distribution of some of these species should be provided in the previous paragraph when mentioning the nine different known species (L66). Host specificity provides (in some case) one more traits that allow to distinguish between these species; e.g. P. mordida and P. cerina on P. ponderosa; L. maureri on P. ayacahuite in Mexico
L99. If I clearly understdand, the aim here is to use molecular phylogenies to guide the identification of shared “morphological” traits between these different species. If so, I should be probably stated in a clearer way.
L.188. “for most”. What do you mean by most; how many sample corresponded to mix of different individuals; were they discarded?
L190. was it systematically the same amplicon size for the five different Lophodermella species. Based on the sequences fiund in the supp. mat., I guess no.
L200. Doesn’t really make sense to talk about the tree built from the concatenated dataset before having presented the result of the partition homogeny test (L208).
L208. The ILD test informs about character congruence between the different partitions, which is accurate, but this is not a topology test. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S153204640500081X.Topological congruence between the three dataset should also evaluated. There is some tests for that or there is the “good old way” of just checking if the three tree have some nodes differences (after boostraping).
L220. “clustered at ITS… » I see what you mean, but actually that means nothing. Something like that would be better: RMNP_01 and L. dooksii were found into a cluster supported with xx BS and xx PP in the ITS tree and ….
L241-244. It would be nice to explain (for the non-specialist) what these RI and CI indexes exactly are – or what do they mean.
L278-283. long sentence with several ideas in it. + I’m not sure I understand what you mean here: “since Lophodermella is an understudied genus where molecular studies are rare”. Please, rewrite –with few shorter sentences
L283. “Lophodermella species with no molecular information”. You mean: by including Lophodormella species for which (so afr) there’s no sequence data available? Please, clarify
L289. “Though morphological distinctions between the two species are poorly defined”. Actually, Table 2 suggests that there’s some difference for several morphological criteria. E.g. range in ascomata size. To me that looks quite well defined, the issue being the overlap in size observed for most of 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: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF LOPHODERMELLA NEEDLE PATHOGENS (RHYTISMATACEAE) ON PINUS SPECIES IN THE USA AND EUROPE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well written and I have no major criticisms on the structure of the text, figures and tables. I think Fig. 3 would be improved by the inclusion of scale bars to provide a size reference.

L61-62: There is a published report of a prior outbreak of L. cerina in the southern U.S.
(Czabator, F.J., Staley, J.M., and Snow, G.A. 1971. Extensive southern pine needle blight during 1970-1971, and associated fungi. Pl. Dis. Reporter 55: 764-766.)
Experimental design: The experimental design appears sound and the authors were very thorough in analyzing the data.

L163-167: It’s been noted for many years now that model selection for phylogenetic reconstruction may not be necessary and that the most parameter-rich model (GTR+I+G) can be utilized to provide the best results. A recent publication discusses the issue more carefully (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08822-w)

L168: why only 200 BS replicates for ML when 1,000 replicates is the standard?
Validity of the findings: This study is laying the foundation for future work that can delve more deeply into possible cryptic species and host distribution with a larger dataset. It's a bit surprising how poorly studied this fungus is and the authors really had no access to additional data from the various databases. The authors did a great job of interpreting their findings while avoiding speculation not supported by the data.

L174-175: Personally, I think too many outgroup/related sequences have been included, which I see is largely based on Laflamme et al. (2015). I can understand the use of closely-related needle blight pathogens of conifers (e.g. Lophodermium, Lirula and Elytroderma) but many of the >50 sequences may not provide any additional resolution, especially in the consensus tree format. Specifically, the “fungal endophytes” should be removed and species of Hypoderma could be reduced. Also, correct spelling on L. piceae.

L218-219: The isolate code (RMNP_01) is not included in Fig. 2.

L278-280: You elude to it here, but I think you should state it more clearly: based on the data presented here, it’s possible that L. conjuncta is not a true Lophodermella and may need to be reclassified. It’s possible that these isolates represent a segregate genus that shares a close morphological and phylogenetic relationship to Lophodermella.
Additional comments: Overall, I enjoyed reading this manuscript and I commend the authors on their fine work. I have only minor suggested edits.


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: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSES OF LOPHODERMELLA NEEDLE PATHOGENS (RHYTISMATACEAE) ON PINUS SPECIES IN THE USA AND EUROPE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is mostly clearly written. There are some sections that need clarity and some where the grammar can be improved upon. These sections have been highlighted on the attached document.

The introduction provides a solid background for the study. The distinct lack of molecular data available for pine needle pathogens in the Rhytismataceae is highlighted and forms the basis of the study.

Tables are sufficiently detailed and contain all the necessary information needed for the study including data summaries.  Some, such as Table 1, are quite long and can be re-arranged (without losing content) to reduce the length for more efficient reading. Table 3 could possibly be moved to supplementary data.

In Table 2 – I would suggest the authors include the descriptions and measurements for the undescribed Lophodermella sp. This would be useful for future studies. Ideally this table should contain this information for all 9 described Lophodermella species.

Figure 1 could do with some re-sizing and re-formatting to produce a proper photo-plate.
Experimental design: The main focus of the paper is to characterize the Lophodermella species causing disease in the USA and Europe, mainly using molecular methods. In this regard, this paper goes a long way in trying to reduce the void of sequence data available for some of the species in Lophodermella and this is commendable.

However, my biggest concern with the paper is the lack of completeness of the phylogenies in terms of species of Lophodermella being represented. The authors say there are 9 species (lines 66) and but only 5 of the species are sequenced. Is there no chance to get the other species in Lophodermella to complete the phylogeny for all the known and described species in the genus? My concern is that, for example, the potentially new Lophodermium sp. identified in this study could actually be one of the other species (e.g. L. cerina, L. maureri, L. morbida or L. orientalis). If not to be included then the authors should try and motivate why these species should be ruled out as a possible id.

The lack of sporulation of spores on media is interesting to report and is probably the reason why so little molecular work has been done on this genus.

Line 146: Does this reference include the protocol i.e. reagent mixes and pcr cycling conditions which are missing for the PCR amplification steps.

Line 153 samples: what is considered a sample here from the 32 collections across 12 sites?

For the ITS region – the authors need to stipulate if both the internal transcribed spacer regions (1 and 2) were used or just one of them?
Validity of the findings: There is a section on sampling missing in the results. If these are emerging diseases, a description/incidence/severity report etc of the disease would be good.

There is a mixture of the use of term haplotype and genotype in the text.

Table S1 – This table is not very clear in its headings (see comments on file). Is it not clear to me how many isolates of each species were sequenced and then which were used for blast searchers - OR were all the sequences for a particular species identical?

All data has been provided and is sound. The discussion is comprehensive and informative and relates back to the results.  Clear reasonings are given as to why the authors have not gone ahead and described the new species. Clarity is still needed regarding officially transferring Lophophacidium dooksii to Lophodermium dooksii.

Additional comments for review can be found directly on the PDF.
Additional comments: The paper will make a great contribution towards furthering our knowledge on pine needle diseases and the pathogens that cause 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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE, CATEGORY AND EXPERIENCE WITH THE SOCCER REFEREE’S SELF-EFFICACY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well-written in English.

The structure for the introduction section needs to be improved to gain clarity and rationale, although background and context provided is sufficent. However, the contribution the study is missed and litarature references needs be revised.

The article follows the basic structure for any research work: Introduction, Materials and Methos, Results, Discussion and Conclusions. Nevertheless, a limitation section must be included and implications for practice should be improved. The different tables are showed in an adeaquate and clear way.

The results obtained responded to the objectives and hipotheses raised.
Experimental design: The study represents an original research.

Although the research questions were well defined, the contribution of the research is missed and needs to be urgently addressed.

The reserach meets all ethical standards by having their approval of the Ethical Committe of a particular university.

Method was suitably described, providing detailed information to its future replication.
Validity of the findings: Novelty of results is difficult to know by not specifying the contribution of the study to the scientific knowledge. However, the noexpected results were well discussed and justified. The benefits derived from this research should be reforced.

Overall, the data analysis were adequate, although a serie of points related to missing values, outliers and path analysis instead of linear regression analysis must be tackled and justified by the authors.

The conclucions of the study responded to the objectives raised for the study. Nonetheless, they should be presented in a more detailed way.
Additional comments: Introduction
General comment.
	In my viewpoint, the structure of the introduction section needs to be largely improved to gain clarity, consistency and rationale. It is really difficult to follow the reading with respect to their ideas. The authors presented stress and its relationships with other psychological outcomes, making me think that this variable would then be analysed, but it did not do so. Similarly, they accurately described the Referee Self-Efficacy Scale as a valid and reliable measure of self-efficacy, but the study did not aim to examine its psychometric properties. The conceptualisation of general self-efficacy and referee self-efficacy also needs be to enhanced. In addition, the contribution and gap of the study are missed.

Specific comments:
Comment 1: Line 49 and 50: To justify the little body of research focused on referees, there is a need to use a more current study than the Guillen’s (2003) one. Since 2003, the body of research could be increased.

Comment 2: Line 56: Please, swap “i.e.” for “such as”.

Comment 3: There is no point in talking about stress. It is advisable to draft this part again. Indeed, stress could be a consequence associated with a low level of self-efficacy in referees.

Comment 4: Lines 79 – 86. It is confusing for me. The ideas do not sound good. First, the concept of general self-efficacy must be improved because some key words are missed: a set of beliefs or specific context or task. Given that the self-efficacy is inherent to a specific activity, Bandura advocates for distinguishing different types of self-efficacy, including referee’s self-efficacy. After conceptualising general self-efficacy, it is more logical to find the definition of referee self-efficacy (higher-order factors) and then its four dimensions: game knowledge, decision making, pressure and communication (primary-order factors). Next, it is recommendable to show the different associations of referee self-efficacy with different adaptive or maladaptive outcomes derived from arbitrating a match. Thus, there is no point in talking about self-efficacy in athletes due to they were not studied in this research (lines 80-82). Indeed, as the authors know there is a big controversy about the consideration of referees as professional sportspeople.

Comment 5: In my opinion, there is no point in showing the full version of the Referee Self-Efficacy Scale because the objective of this research was not to analyse the instrument’s psychometric properties. Thus, the information about the instrument is better to find it in the instrument section.

Comment 6: Introduction: Lines 96 – 102: It is unnecessary to present and describe the six key variables for refereeing success given that they were not examined. This detailed description makes me think that the authors also wanted to study them.

Comment 7. Introduction: The contribution and gaps of the study are missed. Which is the contribution of the study to the current scientific knowledge? Is it important to study the football soccer’ sense of efficacy? Would there be differences between football referees and other sports ones?

Comment 8. Introduction: Line 120: González-Oya & Dosil (2004) -> González-Oya and Dosil (2004)

Materials and Method
Overall, the method followed and materials were well described.

Specific comments:
Comment 1: Participants: I suggest including the maximum and minimum values for age, weight, height, and experience.

Comment 2: Participants: Line 137: The concept of data baseline contrasts to the cross-sectional design used in the study (line 156). In my viewpoint, data baseline suggests the existence of a post-test measure.

Comment 3: Participants: The sampling method is missed. It is therefore recommendable to specific how the participants were recruited and selected.

Comment 4. Instruments: Specify the numbers of items for each factor comprising the instrument. It is also recommended to include a sample item of each of the four factors.

Comment 5. Instruments. Lines 150-153. In my opinion, the results given on the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients would be better ubicated in the results section. Additionally, it should be considered that the research specialised in psychometry establishes that Cronbach’s alpha values equal to .80 or higher must be obtained when comparing mean differences among groups (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Viladrich et al., 2017).

Comment 6. Procedure: I suggest swapping “Procedure” for “Design and Procedure” by tackling the type of design adopted in this section too.

Comment 7. Procedure: Although the questionnaire was administrated via online, I wonder if the survey respondents had any type of information for their completion. It would also be recommended to report if the participations received any type compensation for filling it and the average time spent for their administration.

Comment 8. Data analysis. Prior to normality assumption, it would be mandatory to inform about missing values and univariate and multivariate outliers.

Comment 9. Data analysis: There is no information about a linear regression analysis in the data analysis section, although their findings were displayed in the results section and Table 6. Even I wonder if a structural equation modelling analysis with latent (self-efficacy) and observed (age, experience, etc) variables had been better option than the linear regression analysis (Kline, 2015).

Results

Comment 1. Table 1. Please, specify p-value associated with the Z statistic used in the Kolmogorov–Spearmon test.

Comment 2. Table 2. Which does M mean found on the right side of the table?

Comment 3. Table 3. Which do G and M mean found on the right side of the table?

Comment 4. Table 4. Which does G mean found on the right side of the table?

Comment 5. Line 197 and following times: “one-dimensional variable”. In psychometric terms, an one-dimensional variable is the one measured by a single factor (Kline, 2015). However, referee self-efficacy is here measured by the estimation of four primary-order factors. This makes that referee self-efficacy a higher-order factor, indicating a global referee self-efficacy score. Please, be careful about the expressions.

Discussion
	The discussion is well structured. In general terms, the main results are discussed, contrasted with previous studies and the justifications proposed for these findings are logical and consistent.

Comment 1. Line 275 and 286: Karakam & Adiguzel (2019) -> Karakam and Adiguzel (2019)

Comment 2. Line 312: Fayos & Vives (2003), -> Fayos and Vives (2003),

Comment 3. It is a mandatory requirement to consider a limitations section, including the main limitations derived from the study. For instance: the cross-sectional design, the type of non-probabilistic sampling method or the use of self-reported measures are some limitations that this study had.

Comment 4. It is important to underline the practical implications of this study. The conclusion section showed poor implications for practice. Indeed, the conclusion section could be largely improved.

The study references
	Please, ensure that references have not got types. Below, the authors can find some typos detected.
Comment 1: Lines 398- 400: Check this reference because there are typos.

Comment 2: Lines 405: science: a -> science: A

Comment 3: Line 423: Effi-cacy. Please, check this out.

List of references
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
Nunnally, I. H., & Bernstein, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw‐Hill.
Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). A journey around alpha and omega to estimate internal consistency reliability. Annals of Psychology, 33(3), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401


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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE, CATEGORY AND EXPERIENCE WITH THE SOCCER REFEREE’S SELF-EFFICACY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	The use of the term “category” to reference a referee’s level based on the standard of soccer they can referee is unclear until line 106 after three references (including the abstract). It is recommended that the “category” is altered to “level” or further clarification is made in order to improve understanding.
2.	Your review of self-efficacy studies on referees is concise but more justification could be added to the knowledge gap being filled by your study between lines 103-130.
3.	It is suggested that brief clarification is added to improve layperson understanding to specifical clarify why “optimum levels of self-efficacy are important” in the abstract on line 28-30.
4.	Further clarification on the “psychological skills” mentioned on lines 60 and 63 would improve clarity.
5.	The sentence on lines 32-33 “Two-hundred fifty….” Could be improved for clarity. Adding “completed” before “Referee Self-efficacy Scale….” Would suffice
6.	Although abbreviations are used well throughout, “RH” on line 313 and “AB Referees” need explaining to improve comprehension.
7.	Although the connection is appropriate, a better link between a referee and arbitrator could be made on line 84 in order to improve clarity.
Experimental design: 1.	Further details and context are required about the SR participants outline on line 133. The first indication that these referees were voluntary/amateur is made in the conclusion. As stated, this could have an impact on the findings so should be outlined earlier alongside further contextual information. For instance, what is a national category voluntary referee from Andalusia equivalent to in the professional game?
2.	Furthermore, are all SR adjudicating the same age group of participants? You may suggest this on line 270 stating, “the players are small”. A difference in the age group a SR is adjudicating could have a big impact on their “certainty in communicating…”.
3.	Providing further detail about the validity of the Referee Self-Efficacy Scale. Meyers et al (2012) provided robust construct validity for the measure and Cronbach’s Alpha does not solely represent this. For further guidance, see Flake and Fried’s (2020) ‘Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them’.
4.	I suggest refining the research questions and aims of the study to improve comprehension and clarity. The study aims outlined in the introduction bare no reference to the “endogenous characteristics” stated on lines 254-255 of the discussion.
5.	Further justification is required to outline the reason why the study was conducted in March 2020 and the implications that may have on the study.
6.	A suggestion for future research following your study would be to adopt more longitudinal research methods and applying a Bayesian approach to data analysis.
Validity of the findings: 1.	I commend the authors for their robust data analysis and attempts to validate their findings through multiple statistical tests. Thank you for providing the raw data set and for outlining your results clearly in the manuscript. If there is a weakness it is tying the findings and concluding remarks back to the research question and the gap in knowledge that has been suggested above.
2.	You should add more support for the reason behind conducting the number of statistical tests you have. It could be misconstrued that you have gotten lost down the “garden of forking paths” and it would help to show your rationale.
Additional comments: I commend the author for a very interesting paper and their attempt to bridge a much-needed gap in the literature. With clearer justification for your research design and findings, you have an excellent paper that will contribute to the discussion on self-efficacy literature in sport.


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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE, CATEGORY AND EXPERIENCE WITH THE SOCCER REFEREE’S SELF-EFFICACY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Comments to the Authors:
The purpose of this article was to examine referee self-efficacy in Spanish referees at a variety of age, competence, and experience levels. Overall, I found the paper interesting, although somewhat hard to follow at times. I have provided some comments below based on my multiple reads of the paper.

Main Points:
The authors conducted many statistical tests. While I don’t see that as an explicit problem, as a reader if was difficult for me to discern what tests are most appropriate. I would strongly suggest for the authors to think critically about their main research questions, frame the introduction around those research questions, and discuss the findings tied to those questions. As a reader, I didn’t always know how a statistical test was tied to something that the authors set up in the introduction. I think it is worth removing some of the tests that add little to the main research question (perhaps the regression at the end).

This point follows the previous point. I would strongly encourage the authors to list out all of the hypotheses they plan on testing in the introduction. As a reader, I was surprised that there was a regression included in the analysis because it was not mentioned in the introduction at all. If you are going to include the statistical test, it should be clearly derived from the introduction that was written.

I would also like the authors to strongly consider sticking with consistent terms throughout the paper. The authors used the term referee and arbitrator throughout the manuscript. It can be difficult for readers to make sure you know what you are discussing. Please stick with a term and use it throughout (even if it seems repetitive).

Remove Acronyms. I am fine with soccer referee (SR) being shortened, but many times during the paper I had to go back to see what the subscale acronyms stood for. For readability, make sure to write out the full term.

Minor issues:
L 1-  The authors never make clear the distinction about the controllable variables in the manuscript. The title should be revised to match what the authors did.

L 28-29- The first sentence reads awkward to me. Perhaps change to “Soccer referees encounter stressful situations during…”

L 34- There should be a hyphen between fifty-six

L 35- Change “carried-out” to administered

L 40- Remove the term influence. Everything that was done in the study was cross sectional and correlational. Perhaps use relate

L 50-51- In my experience, referees work at sports games, not sports practice

L 58- Soccer referees do not control the behavior of athletes.

L 62- When you state travel distances, I believe you mean run.

L 66- Remove the phrase “face of the permanent”

L 73- Is this the finding for just one position (soccer forwards)? It seems like it wouldn’t be just for soccer forwards.

L 74-75- This sentence is unclear to me. Please rephrase.

L 103- The variables listed there are more accurately described as subscales

L 113-115- This sentence is unclear to me. Are the referees athletes? I think a rephrase here is necessary

L 158- What do you mean by an ad hoc instrument?

L 274 and onward- Once you restructure the introduction and make clear ties to the hypotheses you test, I believe you need to restructure some of the discussion to make clear the new knowledge generated.

L 503-  The term “Grown-up SRs” does not appropriately describe the referees in this sample. Use a different term.

Table 4. The term “non-experience SRs” does not describe the referees in the sample well. Find an alternative term.

Table 5. How did you create a value for category? I might have missed it in the manuscript, but it was unclear in this table.


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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE, CATEGORY AND EXPERIENCE WITH THE SOCCER REFEREE’S SELF-EFFICACY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have completed a good job by improving the introduction, method, discussion and conclusions. In my view, the quality of the manuscript has been meaningully increased. However, I am seriously concerned about path analysis made and showed by the authors.
Experimental design: The authors have meaningfully improved this section of the manuscript. Congrats.
Validity of the findings: Please, provide information about path analysis and Figure 1. Path analysis is a type of structural equation modeling (Kline, 2015) performed using AMOS, Lisrel, EQS, Mplus or R. This type of analysis is more poweful one than linear regression analysis. In fact, path analysis had to replace linear regression analyses made. In this same vein, the hypothetised factor model in terms of path analysis provides goodnees-of-fit measures that should be interpreted according to cuf-off points established by previous psychometry studies (e.g., Hu and Bentler, 1999 or Marsh et al., 2004). It is also needed to gather evidence on multivariate normality assumption (e.g., Mardia's coefficient) and to detail estimation method.
Regarding Figure 1. Typically, manifest variables are represented by rectangles instead of circles. Circles are used to represent latent variables (or latent factors). In addition, R2, total variance explained,  should be for dependent (or consequence) variables instead of independent (or predictive) variables, to the extent that R2 reflects the porcentage that indenpent variables explain for each dependent variable. Latly, the representation of lantent variable G-SE generates serious doubts to me. Figure shows that G-SE (high-order factor) predicts four primary-order factors, when the high-order factor had to be predicted by the four primary-order factors. Indeed, it is totally unnecesary to include G-SE as high-order factor by being already considered as manifest variable. Anyway, more justification and rationale is needed to gain clarification on this point.

References

Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). IBM® SPSS® AMOSTM version 20.0. IBM SPSS.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modelling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103
Additional comments: I would like to thank the authors for their great job in providing a detailled response to every comment and suggestion proposed. However, I am seriously concerned about path analysis given that it does not followed the habitual procedure.


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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE, CATEGORY AND EXPERIENCE WITH THE SOCCER REFEREE’S SELF-EFFICACY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: I believe the changes to the manuscript made it a significantly better final product. Thank you for taking the time to consider each 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: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE, CATEGORY AND EXPERIENCE WITH THE SOCCER REFEREE’S SELF-EFFICACY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No additional information is required.
Experimental design: No additional information is required.
Validity of the findings: Additional information about path analysis is required.
Additional comments: The authors continue to provide no information about how path analysis was run. Given that they used AMOS, they should inform on the multivariant normality assumption through Mardia's coefficient (Byrne, 2016). The estimation method is also missed. Additionally, the 5000-resampling bootstrapping technique would be applicable in the case of violation of the multivariant normality assumption (Byrne, 2016). In addition, assessment of goodness of fit should be reported by a variety of fit indexes. For AMOS: chi squared/ degree of freedom, CFI, IFI, TLI, SRMR and RMSEA (90%CI). Following the previous research, the chi squared/ df is adequate with values less than 5 and excelecent with values below 3. CFI, TLI and IFI are adequate with values higher than .90 and excelent with values over .95. SRMR and RMSEA are adecuate with values below .080, while values lower than .06 are excelent for RMESEA (Hu & Betler, 1999; Marsh et al., 2004). All of this information is missed.


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: FIRST RECORD OF TRICHINELLA IN LEOPARDUS GUIGNA (CARNIVORA, FELIDAE) AND GALICTIS CUJA (CARNIVORA, MUSTELIDAE): NEW HOSTS IN CHILE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In some sections of the article, the English language should be improved.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: The results contribute to the knowledge of an endemic zoonosis in southern South America, with strong implications for public health.

I recommend publishing the manuscript
Additional comments: Trichinella in wildlife with the first record in a small felid, Leopardus guigna, and a mustelid, Galictis cuja, in South America
The title should be improved

First record of Trichinella in Leopardus guigna (Carnivora, Felidae) and Galictis cuja (Carnivora, Mustelidae): new hosts for South America

If it is the first record of Trichinella larvae in a native South American mustelid, isn't it the first record also in Galictis cuja?

Introduction

Line 37 Trichinellosis is a worldwide disease…..
Line 39-42 The paragraph should be improved
Trichinella is only transmitted by the consumption of infected meat, by predation or carrion consumption. So, circulates among carnivore and omnivore vertebrates: reptiles, birds and mammals. In human, trichinellosis is mainly associated to cultural factors, especially the slaughter of domestic pigs without veterinary inspection and the consumption of raw or poorly cooked meat.
Line 40 the genus Trichinella has been recorded in birds and reptiles as well as mammals. In some parts of the text it is correct. Please review.
Line 45-48 The paragraph should be improved
Thus, the knowledge of the hosts and reservoirs is relevant to propose control measures. The domestic and wild Trichinella cycles are connected and fed back primarily by invasive rats and other synanthropic animals (Pozio, 2000).
Line 51-55 The paragraph should be improved. The fact that most of the hosts are mammals has already been reported and is repeated. Perhaps the content of the introduction could be better organized.
-how is it transmitted
-what are the species
-which are the hosts
-which species circulate in host groups.
Line 58
In Bolivia, Brazil and Ecuador antibodies have been detected, but not the parasite. This difference must be considered.
Antibodies against Trichinella spp. have been detected in Bolivia, Brazil and Ecuador.
Please the paragraph should be improved.
Line 61-62 It remains to mention who described T. pseudospiralis
Line 60-64 Please check the singular and plural. For example: "sea lions", there are several species of sea lions and there is only one record for South America in one specimen of one species.
Line 67 Trichinella spiralis is the sole only species that has been reported in Chile
Line 71-73 Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the presence of Trichinella sp. in carnivorous or omnivorous wild vertebrates from south-central Chile.

Materials & Methods
Was not necessary a work permit from the relevant government department necessary to lift dead animals from the roads? In case it is, please mention it.

Line 76-77 The study area includes three administrative regions of Chile: the Maule, Ñuble and Biobío Regions (Fig. 1).

Line 80 The coordinates in the manuscript are not necessary, as the graphic contains them and is clear.
Line 87-95
The species and the number of individuals analyzed is a result, it should go under the subtitle results. They could be presented in table format, without repeating the information in the manuscript.
Examined animals were: Birds-Strigiformes: Bubo magellanicus Gmelin, 1788 (n=2), Glaucidium nana King, 1828 (1), Strix rufipes King, 1828 (2), Tyto furcata Temminck, 1827 (5), Birds-Accipitriformes: Parabuteo unicinctus Temminck, 1824 (11), Cathartes aura Linnaeus, 1758 (1), Coragyps atratus Bechstein, 1793 (2); Birds-Pelecaniformis: Pelecanus thagus Molina, 1782 (1); Mammals-Artiodactyla: Grampus griseus Cuvier, 1812 (1); Mammals-Carnivora: Otaria flavescens Shaw, 1800 (1), Leopardus guigna Molina, 1782 (6), Galictis cuja Molina, 1782 (17), Lycalopex culpaeus Molina, 1782 (9); Mammals-Microbiotheria: Dromiciops bozinovici D’Elía, Hurtado and D’Anatro, 2016 (1); and Reptile-Squamata: Philodryas chamissonis Wiegmann, 1834 (1).

Results
Line 115 (güiña. 52 larvae per gram)
Line 116 (lesser grison. 0.3 larvae per gram)
How many grams were digested from each positive animal? Please include the answer. It is important to the discussion.
What year were the samples of these animals collected? Because sampling was from 2013 to 2020. Please include the answer. It is important to the discussion.

Discussion

Line 121-123 The English language should be improved
Line 135 The English language should be improved.
 Similarly, other felids have been reported harboring Trichinella in Chile, as Puma
They should mention that the species in which there was a positive specimen are the species with the largest number of samples (Galictis cuja 17) and another is among the most sampled (Leopardus guigna 6). Which could indicate that the lack of positive results could be related to a low number of animals sampled. Could it be that the lack of positive results is due to the number of grams analyzed?
Have these species been registered as a reservoir for other parasites or other pathogens that could indicate an important role in the connection between the wild and domestic cycle?

Conclusions
Line 182-183 It is appropriate to mention the specific names in the conclusion. If it is the first record of Trichinella larvae in a native South American mustelid, isn't it the first record also in Galictis cuja?

Make corrections also in 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: FIRST RECORD OF TRICHINELLA IN LEOPARDUS GUIGNA (CARNIVORA, FELIDAE) AND GALICTIS CUJA (CARNIVORA, MUSTELIDAE): NEW HOSTS IN CHILE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript needs some attention regarding the writing style and I have made a few edits to the article and added a few comments/suggestions directly on the article and there are few places where further clarifications are required. I have written my comments/suggestions directly on the manuscript (attached). I recommend that the manuscript is further reviewed by a native English speaker to improve the language.
Experimental design: The design is acceptable as it is based on convenient samples based on the reasons given of challenges in accessing wildlife animals for this type of study.
Validity of the findings: The result could have been easily presented in a tabular form for clarity. I strongly suggest that the authors include photographs of the isolated larvae as well as the PCR product they got with the size indicated. Again, if possible, the best and non-equivocal way of establishing the species as Trichinella spiralis is to send the PCR products for sequencing.  I recommend that this is done if these are still available,
Additional comments: N/A


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

Input:
Title: FIRST RECORD OF TRICHINELLA IN LEOPARDUS GUIGNA (CARNIVORA, FELIDAE) AND GALICTIS CUJA (CARNIVORA, MUSTELIDAE): NEW HOSTS IN CHILE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Comments made in the first review.
Experimental design: Comments made in the first review.
Validity of the findings: Comments made in the first review.
Additional comments: Introduction
Line 67-71: include Pecarí (Tayassu tajacu) :
Soria, C.; Mozo, G.; Camaño, C.; Saldaño, B.; López, E.; Malandrini, J.; Soria, J. (2010) Aislamiento de larvas de Trichinella spp. en Pecarí (Tayassu tajacu) de Icaño, Departamento La Paz, Catamarca. Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnología en Educación y Educación en tecnología, 2(1):153-163.

In table 1: the internal laboratory code is not required. Please include a column with the vulgar name and Bierd (B) Mammals (M) or Reptil (R). Highlight the two positive animals as in figure 2 (Infected animals are presented with the symbols “+” (Leopardus guigna) and “*” (Galictis cuja). I would sort the samples by date.


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: FIRST RECORD OF TRICHINELLA IN LEOPARDUS GUIGNA (CARNIVORA, FELIDAE) AND GALICTIS CUJA (CARNIVORA, MUSTELIDAE): NEW HOSTS IN CHILE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have adequately addressed my previous comments. However, the manuscript still needs some professional editing in may areas. I have attempt to correct some parts but still there is lot to be done to improve the language throughout the manuscript.
Experimental design: Nothing to add.
Validity of the findings: Nothing to add.
Additional comments: Nothing to add.


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: ANTIVIRAL EFFICACY OF SHORT-HAIRPIN RNAS AND ARTIFICIAL MICRORNAS TARGETING FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: This is a study on RNAi strategies against the FMDV pathogen. Similar studies have been published several years ago, but this study has a few somewhat novel items (e.g. amiRNAs) that make it worth reporting, but several items need to be improved. A quite minimal set of experiments were performed, thus some additional work can be done.

The focus is on accessibility of the RNA targets, but this means that another critical variable is ignored: conservation of the target sequences among different FMDV isolates. What is the value of a good inhibitor if it only attacks the lab strain used? Pioneering studies about this have been done for HIV. At least the authors should indicate if the chosen/optimal targets are conserved and refer to previous work on this variable.

As a main focus is on target RNA accessibility, it seems important to refer to some of the key initial reports (PMCID: PMC1934999). In fact, the same group showed that RNA structure changes can lead to viral escape (PMCID: PMC548362). The latter finding indicates that sequencing of just the target sequence does not suffice when one studies viral escape! The authors did not detect viral escape mutations, but perhaps one first has to passage the virus.

Too many terms are used, sRNA shRNA siRNA amiRNA. Perhaps sRNA (was not explained) can be removed for simplicity.

58: remove very

60: OIE?

84: exportation > export

267: chained is quite a popular word. I would like to see details as the inability to see better inhibition with the combination is strange and likely due to an expression issue. I cannot judge that as the basic information on the chaining strategy was not provided. Were 2 expression units coupled, are thereby repeats introduced that may affect vector stability etc. But besides this basic information, it may be required to perform RNA expression studies to demonstrate that both inhibitors are expressed.

Table 2: decimals suggest an accuracy that is probably not there.


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: ANTIVIRAL EFFICACY OF SHORT-HAIRPIN RNAS AND ARTIFICIAL MICRORNAS TARGETING FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: nothing to add
Additional comments: The paper "Antiviral efficacy of short-hairpin RNAs……" by Anabella Currá et al., outlines their study on testing FMDV silencing by examining inhibition by shRNA as well as miRNA, for achieving better control of the disease, predominantly in FMDV endemic regions. In this study, two RNAi approaches were undertaken. The first, a transient suppression assay, using shRNAs, and miRNAs expression vectors, targeted three 3D sites: 444, 290, and 1055. The three shRNA as well as three amiRNA vectors were cotransfected with a pEGFP3D reporter plasmid for examining the level of GFP expression.  The results, as shown in Fig. 2, demonstrate a maximum reduction of ~40% (compared to ~80% GFP expression level in the control assay), where shRNA and amiRNA targeted at the 444 position showed to be the most effective silencing site.
There are several issues concerning the assay. First, why is the  pEGFP3D built as it is? Why not the other way around? Why wasn't the 3D gene cloned downstream to the GFP sequence and in the same reading frame? By doing so, the identification of silencing would be much more pronounced and precise. A second comment is, why not try to cotransfect two or three of the mono construct and the GFP reporter vector instead of using the double expression vectors? Using these methodologies might give much better results.
As for the second method of testing suppression activity, namely infecting stable RNAi BHK clones, can the authors comment on whether they were looking to find the highest expressed clone for each construct before the suppression assays?
One more issue is the lack of discussion on the authors' vision of how RNAi could be applied to combat the disease and how the present study advances their ultimate goal.
Otherwise, The paper is well written, employing the appropriate controls, even though the results they obtained were less convincing by comparing with other reports, and the authors should reflect this piece of information.
In summary, the manuscript is worth publishing after responding to the issues raised in this review


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

Input:
Title: ANTIVIRAL EFFICACY OF SHORT-HAIRPIN RNAS AND ARTIFICIAL MICRORNAS TARGETING FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This study seems to be a continuous work of Gismond et al (J. Virol. Methods 2014).
Anti-viral effect of shRNA and amiRNA is interesting and authors need to address following points to strength their findings.

Major points
1.	In Fig.3., the quantitative data of FMDV-RNA in each experiment groups may clarify the effect of amiRNA.
2.	Expression level of amiRNAs in each cells should be better to show in Fig.3 and Fig.4 to evaluate their efficacy.
3.	Information about statistical analysis is better to be provided in Fig.4.

Minor points
1.	Please provide references for sentence (line 61-62).
2.	Please add reference (line 351).
3.	Please provide magnification (Fig.3A).
Experimental design: Please see basic report
Validity of the findings: Please see basic report
Additional comments: Please see basic report


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: ANTIVIRAL EFFICACY OF SHORT-HAIRPIN RNAS AND ARTIFICIAL MICRORNAS TARGETING FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE VIRUS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: See attached file.


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

Input:
Title: THE TRANSITION TO AGRICULTURAL CULTIVATION OF NEO-CROPS MAY FAIL TO ACCOUNT FOR WILD GENETIC DIVERSITY PATTERNS: INSIGHTS FROM THE CAPE FLORISTIC REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The study presents a comparison of genetic diversity between wild and cultivated accessions of three species of Cylcopia using chloroplast haplotype analysis. The manuscript is generally well written and data analysis seems to be adequate. References seem to be adequate, as well as the article structure and data presentation.
The study also highlights a very pressing topic, because the cultivation of wild species is an increasing occurring phenomenon but consequences for wild species are currently not well considered. There are some minor points which I would suggest to include in the manuscript and which I describe in the sections below
Experimental design: Research question is well defined and methods are sufficiently described.
There are some points regarding the method section where improvements can be suggested:
The author published two other papers in the context, one about C.i. and one about C. s., the latter introducing the method. The paper at hand should be clear to what extent samples and sequences had been already used in the other publications. This should be clearly broken down in the method section, How many samples included and how many where already published. If the all had been collected newly, this can be stated. Ideally the previous studies are already mentioned in the introduction as previous results.

The description of the study system:
It is unclear to what extent the species hybridize. The existence of haplotypes shared between species can have different causes. Cultivated C subterranus seem to share haplotypes with C. i. but not the non cultivated ones. In this context it is of interest how well the species are circumscribed morphological and how their phylogenetic position within the genus is. It might be useful to include this as part of the Introduction or the study system section in the methods and introduce: morphological circumscription, relative phylogeny of the species, and hybridization potential. This section should also contain the description of the commercial circumscription of honeybush. In line 96 it is said that the three most widely used species for commercialization are included in the study. Interesting questions are: how many species Honey bush has, How many in the cape region, How many of these are cultivated? And in the discussion, if there is the possibility that other species than the included ones influence the study. There are a number of Honeybish species mentioned in the end of the discussion that also seem to be of commercial interest. This should be clarified.
Line 98- 99 is a very fundamental assumption of the dataset. It should be elaborated more clearly. If not in the discussion, then in the method section.
101ff resprouting is an ecological characteristic of having vegetative dispersal possibility. The differences between the species might also influence outcrossing behavior, this is more important in the context at hand and should be clearly specified. An obligate resprouter, shows only vegetative propagation? Geneflow between populations should be of no concern then.
The general Method:
The cost effectiveness of the method is mentioned, however, sequencing is today not anymore very time consuming neither too expensive. Even if the method is an alternative for sequencing, the effort should be more clearly outlined. For example if specific instruments or software is needed, should be mentioned at least in a few sentences.
minor remarks:
148 contemporary sanger sequencing is very advanced over the original Sanger 1977 approach. The reference for fluorescence labelled dd nucleotides should be more fitting. However, this is a standard method for which a reference is not necessary.
187 to 189: this information should be part of the methods .
Validity of the findings: Sequences had been deposited in genebank. Conclusions are clear, however, some points are not considered which might be important in this context

The Results first paragraph: The description about haplotype distribution in the populations is difficult to follow.

In the discussion I suggest to include a paragraph about the significance of chloroplast diversity for the question of genetic introgression of cultivated material into wild populations. When the genetic exchange is via pollen, then Chloroplast will not be effected. Pollination of plantations with pollen from the surroundings will increase diversity but not at chloroplast loci. The peculiarities of cpDNA variation should be reflected.
The suggestion of an ecocentric approach could be more clearly reflected with the literature. There are also different goals to be considered, a breeding / selection aspect for the crop requiring a reduction of diversity and the conservation aspect requiring a high diversity. The latter resembles translocation procedures and not procedure for agricultural production. This should be reflected. Refreshing a crop regularly with diversity from wild accessions, might have a conservation implication with the very rare species.

In line 215 genetically distinct, Please be more precise from what.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE TRANSITION TO AGRICULTURAL CULTIVATION OF NEO-CROPS MAY FAIL TO ACCOUNT FOR WILD GENETIC DIVERSITY PATTERNS: INSIGHTS FROM THE CAPE FLORISTIC REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript was well written and easy to read.  A few minor comments were included and should be adressed but does not distract from the merit of the article.
Experimental design: I found the sampling design well structured and supported by a well planned and executed experimental design in the form of a validated HRM technique. Appropriate genetic differentiation analyses were conducted.
Validity of the findings: I found the findings important in the context of this genus and it add to be growing body of knowledge for this important indigenous genus. I appreciated the recommendations that were included.
Additional comments: An important study and I applaud the author for taking an "alternative" perhaps not always appreciated route in terms of HRM and supported sequencing to address the research question.


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

Input:
Title: THE TRANSITION TO AGRICULTURAL CULTIVATION OF NEO-CROPS MAY FAIL TO ACCOUNT FOR WILD GENETIC DIVERSITY PATTERNS: INSIGHTS FROM THE CAPE FLORISTIC REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is a timely paper, and highly relevant to the honeybush and other Fynbos sectors. It's significance for other sectors similar to that of honeybush (e.g., cutflowers (Protea spp.), buch (Agathosma spp.) and rooibos (Aspalathus linearis) is not really mentioned, though. It may be reasonable to assume that this was not an oversight: the authors may have wanted to limit themselves to the scope of their data, which is specific to honeybush.

Language use was good, but some parts need a bit of editing for clarity and consistency. Some sections (e.g. the first and last parts of the "methods" section) are very well written; consistency would help to even out the tone of the entire document.

The literature references and field background are comprehensive, and include the latest work relevant to the paper.

The structure of the paper, and the content of figures and tables conform with convention. Captions, however, need some work here and there. Caption titles should make contextual sense as stand-alone items in the paper. In two of the captions there is no reference to the genus name, and in one, there is no reference to the species or genus reflected in the content of the table. This should be corrected.

Results and scope are relevant to the objectives set out.

Conceptually and methdologically, this is a sound paper. It raises good points that are highly relevant to the honeybush sector, and does so based on good reasoning about ecological concepts. Responses to the comments, as well as correction of a few grammatical and formatting errors (also found in the bibliography) will see this paper fit for publication.
Experimental design: Site selection and sample sizes can be difficult in production areas - there are examples of studies where these are limiting factors (e.g. Chimpango and Hattas, 2017; Potsma et al. (2014).

As mentioned above, the research is timely and highly relevant. Of the two objectives, the latter didn't seem to do justice to the significance of the study. Please see the annotated paper for details.

It isn't clear whether the attempt to avoid genetic material from the same seed lots during site selection was successful, but given that seed sources are mostly unknown (mentioned in the discussion), it probably isn't possible to be absolutely sure. It might be useful just to add a qualifying sentence or two, making this explicit in the methods section.

Methods are well described. Minor indications of information that is unclear are highlighted in the text. Statistical reporting conventions are adhered to, and there is no indication of anything but rigorous analysis. Although there is no indication of unethical research practices, it would be good for authors to say something about and the permissions obtained to access research sites. Presumably, sites were located on private or state-owned land, in which case, such permissions would have been necessary.

The authors should include the time and timing of sampling efforts. Of course, there may be little implication for a genetic study like this one, but it does add to methodological  and reporting rigour.
Validity of the findings: Findings are novel, and build on a previous study that first raised the usually obtuse fact of gene distribution in production systems of these endemic species. The study should stimulate research in related sectors, like cutflowers and rooibos: together with honeybush, these are world exports from the CFR that are earmarked for expansion under the Green Economy for social and economic development, with easy departure from the ecological principles that should govern production and management. This research sheds light on one of the least considered amongst the ecological parameters for sustainable biomass production.

The building of reference material from disparate wild populations was appropriate, and by all indications, was well executed.

Conclusions are well stated, fairly well made, and conclusions aligned well with results and objectives.
Additional comments: This paper is a timely and necessary contribution to research on honeybush, and holds promise for similar lines of investigation in related Fynbos sectors. Despite a growing body of research on these commercial genera, little has been done to advance work on their genetics. Historically, research has been strongly industry-driven, with a focus on traits that might advance production and marketing of standardised biotypes. It is only in recent times that phytochemical profiling, and now, genetic research, is raising the profile of plants in the wild.

Your paper raises the need for a more definitive shift to ecologically-centred management and production for honeybush. The paper is timely - if repackaged for the appropriate audience, this study could feed into local government efforts to shape policy around production and management.

Implications for other Fynbos-based sectors are not highlighted in the paper, but is not to be underestimated. It would be good to follow the lines of investigation into hoenybush, but also to think laterally across other genera and sectors that might benefit from these important ecological insights.


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: SUNBURNS AMONG BEACHGOERS IN THE NORTHERN COAST OF PERU: FREQUENCY AND FACTORS ASSOCIATED
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors describe a sample of beach goers in Peru and look at associations between demographics and self-reported sun behaviors. The authors have noted that while this has been investigated in other populations it has not been done in Peru.

Because the novelty of this paper is the study population I would be interested what characteristics other countries have shown to be associated with sunburns in beachgoers. This could be incorporated into the introduction and/or discussion, with the country specifically mentioned.

The data has been supplied, tables labelled appropriately. I would suggest that the percentages in table one be rounded to the nearest whole number for ease of reading.
Experimental design: The Poisson model with robust error is an appropriate statistical choice. However, the homogeneity of the results for martial status and country of birth, make these variables inappropriate for inclusion in the model. Only 2 people identified as widowers, and < 10 people were from outside Peru. Given the limited data these conclusions cannot be drawn, and effect the generalizability of the model. Therefore, please re-run the model/s excluding nationality and marital status. You could consider including marital status if you re-categorized as married vs. single/divorced/widowed. Also please dichotomize level of education.
Validity of the findings: Because of the issue with the homogeneity of marital status and nationality, conclusions about these characteristics cannot be drawn. Therefore, as suggested above the model must be re-run in order to present valid findings, and the results, discussion and conclusions updated correspondingly.
Additional comments: Additional Suggestions
1.	Line 61 I would suggest strengthening the sentence and state the current evidence has “shown” or “confirmed” the relationship between UV exposure and skin cancer.
2.	When you are explaining that something has a low/high level of something, please state the comparison group. For example, in line 64, “beachgoers have a low adherence to the use of sun protection measures…” compared to xyz.
3.	Quantify the additional number of sunburns the beachgoers have as part of the highest risk group. Also provide details of the population these studies are being carried out in. I.e. what country and nationality/race/ethnicity.
4.	There are some places were the English phrasing could be improved. For example, line 53 remove “one the other hand”. Line 65 remove “Previously”
5.	Chi2 should either be spelt out in full, or use symbols (line 110)
6.	Please provide a reason as to why 3 models are presented, as opposed to just presenting a final model? Did you compare model performance? Was a variable selection method considered?
7.	In the abstract please define aPR.
8.	In the results provide the proportion of males/females (line 130)
9.	Also include in line 131-132 that the remainder of the participants reported no sunburns.
10.	Given the model is presented with a dichotomous outcome, I would also present table 1 as such.


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: SUNBURNS AMONG BEACHGOERS IN THE NORTHERN COAST OF PERU: FREQUENCY AND FACTORS ASSOCIATED
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Some grammatical mistakes. Needs work.
Literature review is brief but okay.
Article structure is okay, but most sections are too short.
Not self contained. References a previous study for study and survey details.

A research manuscript briefly reporting on associations between sunburns and other factors in Peru. While potentially a promising contribution, overall, the importance and novelty of this work are not well articulated. Additionally, many of the key details regarding the study design, survey, and analysis methods are omitted. Finally, more work is needed to improve the discussion and better synthesize it with existing knowledge. As it is now, it is generally a recap of the results. Adding a paragraph or two on the importance and novelty of this work and how it may be leveraged, with more specific examples, would be very valuable.

Lines 53-54: How are high temperatures related to UV? There is a disconnect here; suggest that you remove this first sentence.

Line 61: A possible relationship? Suggest rewording, I think the relationship is not so vague.
Experimental design: Appears to be original research.
Research questions are not defined. Knowledge gap not well defined.
Rigorous investigation is not reported in full. Unable to assess technical standard.
Methods not described with sufficient detail; contradictions apparent.

Notes:

Study Population
How many participants were recruited? How many participants were contacted overall?
Lines 87-88: Please briefly provide more information about study population and context. The reader will not likely want to look up another paper to read pertinent information for the present study. For example, were the participants recruited at the beach? How does the sample represent the population it is drawn from? What was the sampling strategy? Convenience? Randomly selected? This paper is quite short and you can really expand this section

Were there any missing variables? Did you delete observations with missing variables?

Specifically, please include much more detail and rationale for key decisions, such as why you chose a Poisson model and not a logistic or a binomial model. Your description of the Poisson model (which is to model count data) is that you used it to model dichotomous data. Please explain this apparent discrepancy.
Validity of the findings: Results
Tables 1 and 2. In Table 1, there are no widowers who reported any sunburns. Yet, in Table 2, widowers was a significant category associated with any sunburns. How can it be significant if there are no observations to estimate the relationship?

Buried in the limitation section is that these data are not representative of the population where the study was conducted. Please be more transparent earlier and more often (i.e., “in this sample, we found…”) so the reader is not led to believe that these are generalizable findings or that they are free from various biases that may have been introduced by the sampling or analysis methods. Please provide much more detail for each of the steps in this study so the reader may better contextualize and evaluate the strengths of the evidence for the associations reported.
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: SUNBURNS AMONG BEACHGOERS IN THE NORTHERN COAST OF PERU: FREQUENCY AND FACTORS ASSOCIATED
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Some English is still not correct.
Experimental design: Research questions are still broad. More clarity and focus rationale is necessary.
Validity of the findings: Not clear why three models were presented. Unless you are comparing models, such as, are models 2 or 3 "better" than 1, based on AIC or some other metric. Or unless you have specific hypothesis about the models?
Additional comments: The paper is better, but still needs some improvement. As is, it is not quite a proper scientific report. English language needs more editing and some of the paragraphs are only one sentence long.
Finally, the concluding sentence: "Skin cancer prevention policies are urgently needed to increase awareness and reduce the prevalence of sunburns among at-risk populations, like beachgoers." does not follow from your results. Did you assess awareness of skin cancer, sunburn, or protection behaviors? They were not reported in this study. Please modify your conclusion based on your reported results.


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: INCREASED MICRORNA-30A LEVELS IN BRONCHOALVEOLAR LAVAGE FLUID AS A DIAGNOSTIC BIOMARKER FOR LUNG CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This article is clearly written and has reported most of the important aspects. It has used most of the references to explain the aim of the study. I have no issues with the figures and tables they used. The study is hypothesis directed.
However, I have few concerns about the reporting that may be required to be included in the paper,
1. The author should report whether the patients have undergone any types of therapy before the sample collection.
2. Also, it is important to report if the patients with benign lung diseases had any other types of cancer present or if those control cases had developed lung cancer later.
Experimental design: Experimental designs are perfect, and the author has described all the experiments properly to direct this study in a specific direction. I feel the following,
1. It will be informative if the author could show whether the miRNA collected at different time points for each patient and whether the plasma and BALF collection performed at the same time.
3. Change in RNA concentration could occur between the time of collection and analysis. It can be included in the article.
4. Comparing the lung tissues from lung cancer patients and benign lung diseases patients to find out if the tissue could show different miRNA level.
5. Healthy controls can be included since lung diseases could alter RNA level.
Validity of the findings: Although there are several other studies that have been performed but I think this study is unique. The data of the article are statistically sound. Comparing different compartments to detect the status of lung cancer can be crucial. I think they have concluded the study nicely.
Additional comments: The study is well planned and designed. It opened up new areas of research to carry out regarding biomarker detection. This study can be persuaded in future with more detailed experiments in preclinical model.


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: INCREASED MICRORNA-30A LEVELS IN BRONCHOALVEOLAR LAVAGE FLUID AS A DIAGNOSTIC BIOMARKER FOR LUNG CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: It is quite important to find a dependable and non-invasive biomarker for lung cancer detection and is therefore an important area to address.
Experimental design: While the goal of this study was understandable, there appears to be significant contradiction of the findings of this study with current literature. Therefore, this study has to be further substantiated to be more meaningful.
Validity of the findings: Some of the data could benefit from better representation
Additional comments: Both the discussion and conclusion of the article are very short. Comprehensive introduction about miRNA-30a is required; kindly add information from available databases worldwide. Most of the information on miRNA-30a is different from the authors’ findings. Kindly explain further.

Line 47- 48 – Rewrite with purpose of Flexible bronchoscopy and other methods of detection on lung cancer

Line 69 – 70 – It appears that other publications show that miRNA-30a is decreased in lung cancer, which is contradictory to your findings. Kindly explain.

Is Fig 2, are the error bars SD or SEM, both groups appear to have very large deviation.

Is there a figure for lines 152 and 153?

In table 2, what is the unit of the mean values?

Lines 169 and 170 - As shown in Table 3, the best diagnostic cut-off value of miRNA-30a levels in BALF was 2.0316 (with a diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of 80.8% and 69.1%, respectively) – Where did authors obtain the value of 2.0316 from (graph) and what is the unit?


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: INCREASED MICRORNA-30A LEVELS IN BRONCHOALVEOLAR LAVAGE FLUID AS A DIAGNOSTIC BIOMARKER FOR LUNG CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I think this study is very detailed and hypothesis driven.


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: INCREASED MICRORNA-30A LEVELS IN BRONCHOALVEOLAR LAVAGE FLUID AS A DIAGNOSTIC BIOMARKER FOR LUNG CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have addressed my concerns
Experimental design: Issues have been addressed
Validity of the findings: I believe the explanation for the contraindication of their findings to existing literature can be accepted for now and hope they publish the exosome findings in the near future o substantiate this
Additional comments: All concerns have been addressed