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: DUAL-TASKING EFFECTS ON STATIC AND DYNAMIC POSTURAL BALANCE PERFORMANCE: A COMPARISON BETWEEN ENDURANCE AND TEAM SPORT ATHLETES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1-	Authors investigated static and dynamic postural control and the effect of cognitive demand (backward counting) on postural control of team and endurance sport athletes. The manuscript grammatically is well written. The paper addressed an interesting topic and discussed multiple theories to interpret the findings. Whereas, finding causative relations in not in the scope of this research, discussing the observed results should follow an integrated mind set. However, there are some concerns that need to be addressed before deciding to publish the paper.
2-	The problem statement needs more work to explicitly declare why postural control under dual task condition should be compared between two types of athletes. Endurance athletes do not need to coordinate multiple source of cognitive demands to the same extent as team players do need. So why the postural control under dual task conditions need to be compared between two groups. It need to be discussed more in the introduction.
3-	The results section needs reconsideration. Some reports do not match in the "Results" and "Discussion" sections. Also some post-hoc comparisons are reported even though there were no interaction effect.
Experimental design: Overall, experimental design is adequate. But the reason for recruiting backward counting as the cognitive task is not clear, and was not the most appropriate choice in my opinion. As the authors mentioned at the end of the paper, counting backward aloud is closer to what the END experienced in their disciplines rather than to what the TP experienced on court. This could change the interpretation of the results (as the authors refer it as surprising results). I suggest small redirecting the discussion based on this fact or at least mentioning this point in the abstract.
Also aloud counting may impose additional which at least in static condition could impose some considerable sway. I suggest mentioning it as a limitation.
Validity of the findings: 1-	The results on DPBC are confusing and not clear. In Line 180, authors mentioned that there were no main effect or interaction on any of the variables (FB, FiB, and GB). In Lines 183-5 they reported an interaction between task condition and sport condition for FiB; and a tendency to the statistical significance for FB (which is not significant anyway). In Lines 185-7, Authors report post-hoc comparison while there are no (significant) interaction. For GB there is no tendency to significant interaction.

2-	In Line 196 authors stated that "Considering SPBC in ST condition END showed a smaller area of the confidence ellipse (-11.3%) and a higher sway path velocity (+11.1%) compared to TP". This statement do not match the reported results. In the results section authors expressed that in the DT (not ST) condition END showed a smaller area of the confidence ellipse than TP. please clarify which one is correct. The statement in Lines 197-99 is not correct (exact) if the statistical results expressed in the "Results" section hold. It seems that END group holds the same SPBC in ST condition as TPs but with less efficacy (higher COP displacement velocity)...

3-	In Lines 232-34 authors expressed that cognitive demand do not altered DPBC because the dynamic experimental condition proposed was much closer than the static one to the on-court context. This means that dynamic tests that subjects exposed to, has less challenge for TPs. If this holds, we should expect that TPs show better performance (smaller FB and larger FiB and GB) than ENDs. But there was no main effect of group (sport condition) on DPBC variables. Even results did not show better performance favoring TP in ST condition.

4-	Authors believe that the better performance of END could be accounted by the employment of external attentive focus during training and competitions (abstract conclusion). They come into the conclusion that counting backward aloud was an external focus among ENDs which could have contributed to the better DPBC performance in ENDs (Discussion, Lines 238-9). But it is known that high-level endurance athletes (like runners, and swimmers) tend to adopt an internal focus of attention (Motor Behavior: Connecting Mind and Body for Optimal Performance, by Jeffry C Ives, P173). Also why we should not assume that TPs could employ external focus of attention too.
Additional comments: Line 29: concurrent coordination of continues stimuli-related actions...
Line 164: it is better to mention the change in variable; with a better
performance (e.g. less sway area)...
Line 197: We can assume that in ST condition...
Line 209: coping with multiple information processing...
Line 234: Conversely, compared to ST condition, ...


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: DUAL-TASKING EFFECTS ON STATIC AND DYNAMIC POSTURAL BALANCE PERFORMANCE: A COMPARISON BETWEEN ENDURANCE AND TEAM SPORT ATHLETES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thank you for addressing my concerns.


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: DUAL-TASKING EFFECTS ON STATIC AND DYNAMIC POSTURAL BALANCE PERFORMANCE: A COMPARISON BETWEEN ENDURANCE AND TEAM SPORT ATHLETES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This is the second review of this article.  My first review recommended minor revisions, some of which regarded sentence structure and understandability. This iteration of the manuscript has made the changes that I suggested and is of higher quality
Experimental design: The experimental design is appropriate
Validity of the findings: The findings are well supported and well explained
Additional comments: Thank you for your time in making the suggested corrections. I think this article is a valuable contribution to the existing literature.


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

Input:
Title: IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME: RAPID COLONIZATION BY DRAGONFLIES IN A NEW EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT RIVER REACH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript describes the adult odonate fauna of a stretch of Santa Cruz River in southern Arizona. The authors took advantage of the fact that they could compare odonate diversity (and changes thereof over time) in a section of river with established perennial water flow with that in two sections of the same river where this flow, likewise consisting of treated wastewater, was recently restored and underwent large fluctuations during the study period. Studies such as this have the potential to improve our understanding of how insect communities adjust to urbanization, colonize new habitats, and respond to short- and longer-term human-related environmental manipulations, and they are, therefore, welcome and warranted.
Experimental design: I found the manuscript to be well-written and organized, and informative. The data were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. The results are novel and contribute to our knowledge of odonate population dynamics and ecology, as well as to our understanding of urban aquatic ecosystems.
Validity of the findings: See above and below.
Additional comments: L252: The rate of colonization (i.e., species showing up within a few hours of water flow restoration) was, indeed, rather fast, but why the authors conclude that species richness (50 species) at the study sites during the survey period was higher than expected is unclear. Approximately 100 odonate species are recorded in Pima Co., where the work was conducted, and so 50% of the species present in the county were cumulatively found during surveys. Survey sites encompass diverse types of micro-habitats and one stretch of river that was investigated has had water consistently running for several years. Given overall regional richness (approx. 100 species) and the diversity of micro-habitats that were surveyed, one would predict a relatively large number of species to show up at least occasionally and this was, indeed, the case. Thus, and in view of the demonstrated dispersal ability of odonates in general, what is the rationale for stating that species richness was higher than anticipated? The authors compare their findings with those in much larger regions of the state (Stevens & Bailowitz 2008, 2009) and where similar numbers of species (32 and 58, respectively) as recorded here were found. That a much smaller survey area had comparable richness is not particularly surprising because the Santa Cruz river is located well south of and at lower altitude than the regions surveyed by Stevens and Bailowitz, and so is expectedly to hold considerably more species to begin with.

 L275: The Neotropical Bluet was first found in Arizona in 2010 and so has been present in the state, at least sporadically, for more than 5 years – although it is unknown when breeding populations became established. Too, this bluet is common/abundant in the southern half of Texas and so presumably colonized the United States (L275) quite a while ago.

L301: The authors write “We observed much higher richness of adult odonates in the site that dried infrequently versus the one that dried multiple times”. This is correct based on data shown in Fig. 3. However, this figure also shows that this difference was already present in July 2019, i.e., before the first drying event. Thus, drying does by itself not seem to fully explain the observed site differences in odonate richness, indicating that other factors are likely involved.

I am wondering whether the authors could comment on the possibility that the effects of drying on odonate populations may be season dependent. For example, a short period of drying in early summer, before the summer monsoon and when temperatures are usually elevated, would be expected to have a more pronounced and faster effect than a same period of drying during winter, when ambient temperatures are much lower. If so, water resource managers may want to consider limiting drying to the winter, if possible, in order to minimize negative impacts on aquatic biodiversity.
Minor issues:

L101 & L259: Corbet, 1999

L224: were strongly negatively correlated…

L238: Libellula

L248: Suhling et al., 2017 is not in the list of references.

Fig. 2: Why include two pictures of Enallagma civile pairs (one in wheel, the other in tandem with ovipositing female)? Readers would probably prefer to see pictures of different species here.

Fig. 5. Label X and Y axes.

Supplemental data table(s): Red-tailed Pennant = Brachymesia *furcaTa*; Neotropical Bluet = Enallagma *novaehispanIae*; Western Pondhawk = Erythemis *collOcata*; *FilIgree* Skimmer.


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: IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME: RAPID COLONIZATION BY DRAGONFLIES IN A NEW EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT RIVER REACH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: line 189 – I suggest “undetected” in place of “absent.”

lines 252–253 – The authors say that “Not only were colonization rates faster than expected, but overall species richness values were higher than we expected as well.” I do not mean to pedantic, but when I see “expect” in a scientific study I construe it to mean a null expectation (i.e., from a null model) or some statistical expectation. In this case, though, I think the authors mean that the results surprised them, which is not the same thing.

lines 255–258 – I do not find the comparisons to Ash Meadows or the Grand Canyon compelling. They are in different biogeographic provinces and ecoregions, ones that have lower richness across the broad, not just with regard to Odonata.

lines 267–269 – This sentence needs to be reworded. As it stands, it says, “diversity did not differ even though diversity was lower.”

line 270 – I am unsure what is meant by “more robust tolerances of lotic versus lentic odonates.” It is axiomatic that more lotic than lentic species would occur along a river, especially a shallow one with steady flow.

lines 274–275 – What the authors mean here is that Enallagma novaehispaniae has colonized southeastern Arizona in the past five years (or so). It has been known from and well established in the United States for many decades.
Experimental design: If anything gave me pause in this study it revolves around two research questions that intrigued me: “[H]ow quickly do dragonflies and damselflies (odonates) colonize novel habitat?” and “[C]an effluent-dependent streams support diverse odonate assemblages?” Colonization is tricky to establish in Odonata, precisely because odonates are so vagile, the upshot being that just because one can find a suite of odonate species at a site it does not follow that those species have colonized the site. The survey methods perhaps suggest a way around this conundrum, but I cannot be certain. The authors state that they “selected three study sites on the Santa Cruz River to survey for *adult* odonates” [emphasis added] yet later in the subsequent paragraph they imply that they surveyed for “larval emergence” [=tenerals?]. If the latter is true, then I recommend that it is clearer earlier that surveys were not confined to adults. If, however, principally adult surveys alone were conducted, then I suggest the authors adopt some sort of indicator model (e.g., Bried et al. 2015, Freshwater Science; Patten et al. 2019, Ecological Indicators) to support the idea that a breeding population was established.
Validity of the findings: Only in the sense that findings hinge on species having in fact colonized.
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME: RAPID COLONIZATION BY DRAGONFLIES IN A NEW EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT RIVER REACH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting and well-researched paper. However, I have some issues mainly with sampling design and the description of the study system.

Detailed comments

Line 100 to 108 (Introduction)
I would recommend to add another significant reason for focusing on odonate surveys, i.e. that the collected data of odonate assemblages can be summarized in biotic indices. There are valid examples of dragonfly-based biotic indices developed mainly, but not exclusively, for river assessment in different geographical contexts and continents: e.g. central Europe (Chovanec et al., 2015), Mediterranean Europe (Berquier et al., 2016; Golfieri et al., 2016) and Africa (Vorster et al., 2020).

Line 515 (References)
The alphabetical order of this reference is not correct.
Experimental design: Detailed comments

Line 123 to 133 (Study system)
The authors need to better characterize the channel morphology of the study reaches, possibly according to the reach-scale classifications of Rinaldi et al. 2016 (Aquatic sciences) (e.g. sinuous, meandering, wandering, braided etc.) and Brierley and Fryirs, 2005. Moreover, they should also describe channel substrate material and the presence/percentages of aquatic and riparian vegetation in the three sampling sites. Lastly, they could include data about hydromorphological assessment of the study reaches, if available, as morphological conditions significantly influence odonate assemblages at the reach scale (Golfieri et al., 2018).

Line 132 to 133 (Study system)
The authors state that “The nearest naturally perennial stream to all three effluent dependent reaches is Sabino Canyon, 23 km to the east.”, but later on, at lines 324-325 in the Discussion section, they state that “the nearest perennial river source populations are over 100 km away (e.g. the San Pedro and Gila Rivers)”. These statements seem to be contrasting and the authors should clarify this element.

Line 136 (Sampling design)
Samplings focused on adult odonates, but why the collection of larvae and/or exuviae was not considered, at least during the second half of the research period? Are larval stages of all the resident species described and identifiable? Several studies underline the importance of sampling larvae and/or exuviae to characterize odonate assemblages (e.g. Raebel et al., 2010). Moreover, later on, at lines 157 to 159, the authors introduce the issue of “larval emergence” at the site without giving any explanation about how these data were collected and treated. This element has to be clarified.

Line 144 (Sampling design)
Each study transect incorporate multiple distinct habitat units: is it possible to summarize the habitats units sampled in each transect with a table? Could this element (i.e. a difference in the habitat units sampled) influence the different results of the study sites?

Line 155 to 159 (Sampling design)
The authors used three abundance categories, including also elements of breeding behaviour. I would suggest dividing abundance categories from behaviour description, as it also possible to observe less than 10 individuals showing breeding activity. In addition, a clear explanation of the criteria used to consider a species as breeding is needed.
Validity of the findings: Detailed comments

Line 266 to 270 (Discussion)
The authors partly explain the high diversity of Santa Cruz River as a consequence of the “more robust tolerances of lotic odonates versus lentic odonates”. This can be true in some specific contexts, but studies carried out in other countries revealed a significant impact of hydromorphological alterations and related urbanization on riverine odonate assemblages (e.g. Golfieri et al., 2016 and 2018).

Line 288 (Discussion)
The word “junius” has to be written in italics.
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: COMMUNITY BASED ACTIONS SAVE YELLOW-SPOTTED RIVER TURTLE (PODOCNEMIS UNIFILIS) EGGS AND HATCHLINGS FLOODED BY RAPID RIVER LEVEL RISES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors discuss the emergency salvage of P. unifilis eggs and hatchlings in response to high river levels near nesting sites. Their results indicate that eggs can persist for at least two days after being submerged by water and that community intervention allowed a similar number of hatchlings to be released as would have likely occurred during a normal year. The authors therefore suggest that this type of management strategy could be an effective tool for P. unifilis conservation in years where river flooding is extensive during the nesting season.

The article is clearly written and provides sufficient literature and background information. It meets all of the basic reporting requirements and the data are provided in sufficient detail. However, it was not clear to me whether the raw data would be available as a supplementary file or uploaded to an online repository.

I have noted several places where the text could be improved below.
Experimental design: Lines 110–114: This section would benefit from some additional detail. How were nests located on searches? Were nesting areas searched in some sort of grid? What does at a standardized speed mean?
Validity of the findings: The author’s problem statement (lines 75–77) and conclusions (line 270) both mention the effects of flooding on P. unifilis populations. However, the data presented in the manuscript offer little insight into what is actually occurring with these populations. As presented the results indicate that the authors were able to release hatchlings in a single year at a rate similar to natural hatching rates. Without additional data on populations and hatchling survival there is no way to assess what effect this will have on populations, especially given that this species can experience 100% nest mortality (line 245). Furthermore, there is almost no discussion of how the damming of the rivers has practically impacted water levels at these sites. Is there any data to indicate that flooding threatening nest survival is becoming more common in the study area (the methods seem to indicate this was an extreme event)? Thus, I think that in both places indicated above the author’s should reword their statements to focus on nest and hatchling survival and not the P. unifilis population as a whole.

Results: Recommend adding effect sizes to lines 209 and 114, especially with indication that increases were marginal and weak.

Discussion: The discussion should be rearranged to focus on the main result first: that eggs and hatchlings were successfully released at similar mortality rates and weights to those observed in natural conditions after they were submerged by high water levels. The two paragraphs discussing the biological reasons why eggs could survive inundation should be moved to later in the discussion. As indicated above, I also think the discussion would benefit from another paragraph that focuses on flooding along these rivers, the causes, and if it is getting worse over time.
Additional comments: Minor Comments

Line 29: Recommend moving this sentence to Line 27.
Line 32: Add scientific name of species, also recommend adding a mention of the study species earlier in the Abstract (e.g., line 24).
Line 67: Add apostrophe to species.
Line 69: Add comma after documented.
Line 82: Delete “into consideration”.
Line 88: Change was to were.
Lines 94–95: Recommend deleting “and here … nesting areas”.
Line 105: Add comma after community.
Line 125: Delete “Differently to … by our team,”.
Line 128: Reword or delete “with the aim … research team”.
Line 147–148: Add parentheses around i.e., statement.
Line 155: Replace each with every.
Line 157: Add comma after closed.
Line 161: Add comma after rivers.
Lines 173–174: Delete “on the Araguari and Falsino rivers”.
Line 191: Replace be with have been.
Line 194: Remove Table 1 reference.
Line 198: This paragraph needs a better topic sentence. Maybe something similar to lines 202–203.
Line 200–201: This sentence is repetitive with the first sentence in the paragraph and could probably be removed.
Line 208: Remove Table 2 reference.
Lines 221–222: Remove second sentence and combine first sentence with another paragraph.
Line 243: Replace early stages with “egg and hatchling”.
Line 260: Reword to: “Yet, there are ethical and moral concerns associated with these actions.”
Line 265–268: Reword. Currently not a complete sentence.

Table 1: Reporting the number of nesting areas seem to add unnecessary complexity to this table. Recommend just reporting the number of nests in the ‘Total’ and ‘Saved’ columns.
Table 2: This table should indicate somewhere that the weight measurements were only collected from 409 hatchlings at release.
Figure 2: Change dez to dec.


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: COMMUNITY BASED ACTIONS SAVE YELLOW-SPOTTED RIVER TURTLE (PODOCNEMIS UNIFILIS) EGGS AND HATCHLINGS FLOODED BY RAPID RIVER LEVEL RISES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

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


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

Input:
Title: COMMUNITY BASED ACTIONS SAVE YELLOW-SPOTTED RIVER TURTLE (PODOCNEMIS UNIFILIS) EGGS AND HATCHLINGS FLOODED BY RAPID RIVER LEVEL RISES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	Line 276: “the normal community based monitoring” should be changed to the “previously” or “currently” implemented monitoring. Clearer context for this monitoring can be provided in line 105, as stated below in the comments for Experimental Design.
2.	Lines 76-77: providing brief example(s) of “the known impacts” of flooding due to hydroelectric damming can help provide the reader more context.
3.	End of statement in line 53 should be cited.
4.	Professional English is used throughout the manuscript. There are, however, instances where "yet" can be replaced for clearer transitions between sentences (e.g. with "however", "moreover", etc.). For example, see use of the term and transition between sentences in lines 66, 160, and 228.
5.	In line 72, “climate changes” should be changed to “climate change”.
6.	Structure of the sentence in lines 120-124 should be modified or edited for clarity and better flow.
7.	Sentence in lines 126-129 should be edited for clarity, particularly to clarify the statement “had been moved with the aim of the local community…”
8.	Lines 162-163: The language of the sentence can be improved. For example, to: “Healthy hatchlings were then released along the river to the original nesting area.”
9.	Line 248: “expect” should be changed to “expected”.
10.	Line 250: “report mean” should be changed to “report a mean”.
11.	Line 276: “sac” should be changed to “sacs”.
12.	Please edit the sentence in lines 265-268 for clarity and flow. As is now, it reads as an incomplete statement, perhaps due to the transition “and that premature hatchlings…”
Experimental design: 1.	More context should be provided regarding the monitoring that has occurred in the study area since 2011. For example, who does the monitoring? To what extent are local communities involved and is co-management or support provided by external agencies? The authors can choose to expand on this in line 105, where the collaborative monitoring scheme is introduced.
2.	Lines 97-98: Sentence “The study was conducted…(Fig. 1).” should be placed as the first sentence of the paragraph describing the study area.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: Overall, the manuscript is technically sound and conclusions are well stated. As you will see in the suggested comments, more context should be provided regarding the current management schemes.


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: COMMUNITY BASED ACTIONS SAVE YELLOW-SPOTTED RIVER TURTLE (PODOCNEMIS UNIFILIS) EGGS AND HATCHLINGS FLOODED BY RAPID RIVER LEVEL RISES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have done a good job addressing the comments provided by myself and the other reviewer. I had just a handful of other suggestions to improve clarity.

Line 230: Delete ‘turtle’.
Line 230-237: I suggest adding one additional sentence after the 1st sentence to indicate that hatchlings were then released from these flooded nests. The last sentence could also be strengthened by indicating that mortality would have been 100% without the intervention.
Lines 244-245: Hyphenate ‘long term’ and ‘short term.’
Lines 273-277: Recommend rewording and combining these two sentences (e.g., We took reasonable precautions to address ethical concerns, including providing appropriate ….)


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: ULTRAVIOLET-REFLECTIVE FILM APPLIED TO WINDOWS REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF COLLISIONS FOR TWO SPECIES OF SONGBIRD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 53 I don´t think that many companies have produced film treatments. There is a number of companies that produced those films, not so many.
56 Vertical stripes are not the only pattern that is recommended, also dots and any other pattern. It is relevant not to leave open spaces larger that 2-4 inches.
75 It is not only important to consider the artificial light conditions inside the room, but also the fact that, some buildings present windows that look like tunnels. In those cases, the transparence of the glass should also be considered.
94 It is worth to mention the fact that not all species of birds are able to see ultraviolet patterns. Perhaps the authors can specify  groups of birds that can see ultraviolet patterns (Most Passeriformes can, as far as I know), but non Passeriformes can´t see them.
108  Was the ceiling of the tunnel made of net or, how where the windows reflecting the sky?  If the ceiling of the tunnel was made of net, is there a chance that birds change the direction of their flight toward the sky instead of going to the glass windows?
106-116  The authors describe the methods on the introduction. I think this section should not be included with so much details in the introduction.
Experimental design: 135-137  As I mention before, I wonder if the open area covered with fine netting changed the direction of the birds which may try to fly up instead going to the windows.
120-123. The objective of the article at the end of the Introduction instead at the beginning of Methods.
127 The colony of birds have been living a reproducing in captivity during 19 years?  If that is correct, I suspect they may be used to be in closed areas. There is not need for them to fly a lot.
128 How long the cowbirds were kept in captivity before the tests?
Validity of the findings: The article present introduced changes to flight tunnels in order to have more "realistic" conditions. The use of other species of birds should be used without using a method to prevent collisions in order to proof birds are flying toward the glass window and not flight to the open area covered with net.

On the discussion section, I suggest to include more references to other similar or releated studies to discuss your findings. For example, other studies mention the advantages and disadvantages of flight tunnels?
Reduction of risk of collisions in 30-50% is high enough to considere the product effective to reduce bird window collisions?
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: ULTRAVIOLET-REFLECTIVE FILM APPLIED TO WINDOWS REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF COLLISIONS FOR TWO SPECIES OF SONGBIRD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and well done. Some relevant missing information that other researchers would consider essential, about the quantitative description of the treatment tested.
Experimental design: Credible and acceptable. As valid as other similar protocols used to address the same subject.
Validity of the findings: Data collection, analysis and interpretation are accurate, justifiable, reasonable, and judged valid.
Additional comments: The paper is well written, clear, and effectively presented. The figures are relevant and useful.

Authors provide minimal information on the BirdShade film. Other researchers could not test, replicate, or further validate this product using similar or other experimental protocols without knowing how to inquire about obtaining it. There is minimal, little to no quantitative description of the UV signal (reflection component) of the BirdShade film. Previous studies in the literature interpret strength of UV-reflection and UV-absorption as determining factors in avian signal perception guiding avoidance of window treatment deterrence. Recommend adding more quantitative description of UV signal used to deter window strikes, or explain why this information was not relevant and included.

The use of internal artificial light is novel, but its importance and relevance to the deceptive illusion of reflections for birds, although well-known, is reasonable yet uncertain given its variation in interior settings. That the interior light was standardized and modeled after existing windows provides an ability to measure its influence. This a valid novel component to the experimental protocol, and advances our collective knowledge.

Overall, the study reports important information from a modified tunnel-testing protocol addressing assessment, product, and discussion about bird-window collision deterrence in a growing literature on the subject having extraordinary importance for avian conservation.


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: ULTRAVIOLET-REFLECTIVE FILM APPLIED TO WINDOWS REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF COLLISIONS FOR TWO SPECIES OF SONGBIRD
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The basic reporting of results is good, but I have made some comments on the figures and the way results are presented.
The organization of the writing can be improved significantly in the introduction and discussion. It could be made clearer and could maybe benefit from subtitles of topics.

You need more luterature references in both your introduction and discussion. I have pointed out special places where these are missing in the attached and annotated PDF
Experimental design: The experimental design is appropriate for the testing done in this study.
Validity of the findings: These are important findings for urban conservation. The authors test a brand-new UV coated film that has the potential to prevent window collision and decrease the speed in which birds fly into windows. Importantly, this film does not have a printed pattern and is instead coated with UV, which makes it almost invisible to humans and thus more appealing for architects to use.
It would be important to test this film on real buildings. I suggest the authors make this a stronger recommendation at the end.
Additional comments: Introduction
The introduction has all the right elements, but it would benefit from a reorganizing. I suggest you write some subtitles (which you can later delete) and develop each idea separately.
Importantly, the last paragraph is all methods. You should move that to the next session and instead finish with a paragraph stating your objectives, short methods, and what you expect (your hypotheses).

 Methods
These are generally well written and clear.
Results
I made some comments on the figures. The legends need to be stand-alone and complete. They should be able to explain the figure without having to read the paper. I also suggest you standardize the aesthetics of your figures (colors, font, font sizes). I suggested deleting two figures that don’t really show anything additional.
I suggest re-reading your results and looking for places where things are not clear. I got a little lost and often had to go back to the beginning of the paragraph. Use your figures wisely and avoid repeating the figure information in the text, instead refer to the figure.
Discussion
As the introduction, this section could use a lot of work. I suggest using topic subtitles and sticking to a subject for each paragraph. Organize your ideas and present them in order.
You are missing a lot of citations that would better support your claims. I would like to see a second version with many more references to other experiments, even if not on bird-window collisions.
You don’t discuss the implications for bird conservation this experiment could have. I suggest you spend a paragraph discussing why these experiments are important and what is the potential for this film to reduce collisions. Also, is this a cheap solution? Is it easy to apply? Does it have to changed every certain time? Discuss what would be required for this film to succeed and for people to actually use it. Put your experiment in the context of this issue and discuss its potential!


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: SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LEAF AND BRANCH TRACE ELEMENTS AND THE INFLUENCE OF A 3-YR 100% RAINFALL EXCLUSION ON PINUS MASSONIANA LAMB
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The review overall is good, however; it needs a little more detail. Specifically where the species to work is referenced. In the body of the document the first time you quote Pinus massoniana Lamb. Put the author (Lamb.), and complete the genus).
The first letter of the genus is capitalized but the epithet is lowercase.
Check your writing well, in some sentences the subject is usually missing when it comes to It.
Try to write not so long paragraphs, example from pages 82 to 101
Experimental design: The experimental design requires support, since the author writes what was done but does not provide scientific support with works by other authors.
For the sample size, there are also works that support the methodology used (Cox, 1981).
Each measured variable says how it was done or what methodology it is used and author it
Validity of the findings: Acceptable results for a first work on this topic.
Please check the writing structure of the results carefully. Try to get the best scientific benefit. Do not describe what was found but the importance of the results
Additional comments: It is your decision whether you want to consider the opinions expressed here.


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: SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LEAF AND BRANCH TRACE ELEMENTS AND THE INFLUENCE OF A 3-YR 100% RAINFALL EXCLUSION ON PINUS MASSONIANA LAMB
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout
The articule was written in english and use clear and tecically correct text.

Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
The articule include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate the work fits into the broader field of knowledge and appropriately referenced.

Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
The structure of the articule shown an acceptable format.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses
Figure are relevant to the content of the article and approriately described.
Experimental design: This articule was well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated and  fills an identified knowledge gap.
This articule shows a rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Methods used were described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: The articule show results completaly were reached.
The articule content all underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled..
The articule consider all conclusions and were  well stated, linked to original research question to supporting results.
Additional comments: No comments related to this articule.


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: SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN LEAF AND BRANCH TRACE ELEMENTS AND THE INFLUENCE OF A 3-YR 100% RAINFALL EXCLUSION ON PINUS MASSONIANA LAMB
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: There is neither a table nor figure in the body of the article. I think it is advisable to put the matrix table of the research.
Experimental design: The experimental design is clear. In this part it is important to specify the difference between the research object and the phenomenon to be studied. The object is the pines and the phenomenon the relationship between wáter and macroelements
Validity of the findings: I think the main research question is ¿ What is the relatinship between the concentration of water and macroelements?

A general conclusión is important. ¿ Is relationship between the amount of wáter and the macroelements in leaves an branches?
Additional comments: Is a great research


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: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS ON POPULATION DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES IN BIRDS USING SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM (SNP) DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: NA
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: This study addresses an issue of quite wide interest: what sample size is needed to obtain reliable estimates of population demographic estimates? This is studied by subsampling from empirical data, rather than pure simulation. The study is based on SNP recovered from ultraconserved elements in birds. They used resampling to construct simulated populations with a random subset of individuals to access accuracy in population demographic parameters. The system is valuable for addressing the questions posed and the topic will be of interest to many readers of PeerJ.

Although the study has its merits, it is very much focused on a specific setup that might not be transferable to other species and studies. The authors need to investigate the effect of the number of SNPs on the population demographic parameters (i.e., what the minimum number of SNPs to obtain accurate estimates?). In addition, to properly assess whether the data set used is appropriate for the analyses presented, the authors need to provide more information about the SNP data, since the article cited (McLaughlin et al. 2020) has not yet been published. For instance, what does the minor allele frequency distribution look like in the populations? If this is skewed, it can also affect the estimate of population demographic parameters. Another feature of the data, that I would find interesting to check is whether it would be possible to get phased data per sequenced UCE locus and therefore more than two alleles. Would the estimates of the statistics benefit from it?

Authors also need to justify why they, specifically, used the program δaδi (Diffusion Approximation for Demographic Inference; Gutenkunst et al. 2009). It may be very interesting to see if different approaches can affect the accuracy of population demographic parameters when small sample sizes are used.


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: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS ON POPULATION DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES IN BIRDS USING SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM (SNP) DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: McLaughlin and Winker test the effects of varying sample size in estimating demographic parameters using dadi. The study is very well-written, interesting, and certain to be of broad interest. I have very few problems overall with this study and am recommending only minor revisions.

My main issues is that the methods are not adequately described in my opinion. For example, there is not any information about sequencing or library prep protocol or extraction. Similarly, there is no information about bioinformatics. How were SNPs called? How were UCEs assembled? and so on?

I understand that these data are primarily from another study, but that study appears not to be published yet. Not only that, but Peer J’s policy is for published papers to be self-contained. While this lack of self-containment has a slight stench of "salami science" (i.e. chopping up research to produced more papers), I do think it is self-contained enough to warrant publication. Therefore, to fit the journal's standard on self-containment, the authors should at a minimum provide basic information about labwork, sequencing, and bioinformatics, with a citation to the other paper. However, I would rather the authors keep it completely self-contained, and describe these protocols in detail. Much of this can be presented as supplementary data if there are major space limitations.

One additional point is that the units are not stated for any parameter anywhere as far as I could tell. Not in figures, not in methods, not in results. What are the units of effective population size (v1 and v2) and divergence time (T)? Is divergence time in years? Thousands? Millions of years? Even though this study does not focus on these values per se, they are necessary to avoid any confusion and are of interest to the reader.

The assumed mutation rate is also not provided.

Overall, though, I think the paper is a great addition to literature and will be cited by many.
Experimental design: This study meets all the journal's standards on experimental design.
Validity of the findings: The findings are quite interesting and will be useful for other researchers desiging studies with current generation approaches such as UCEs.
Additional comments: Some minor points:

Line 153: the number of loci is stated once in the Materials and Methods. Best to not be redundant. Pick one to use. I personally prefer results.

Line 161: “Time since split” is a bit awkward, how about simply using “divergence time” throughout.

Figure 1: Ideally, I would really like to see these plots for each species and each parameter. A table is really not the ideal way to display these results. I see they are in supplemental, but if you can put this in the main text, it would improve the paper.

Also, throughout, you call the models "split-migration" models. In my experience many/most researchers refer to these as isolation-with-migration models. It is more precise/informative to use the this term in my opinion. "split-migration" is a bit ambiguous without more detail.


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: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS ON POPULATION DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES IN BIRDS USING SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM (SNP) DATA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: NA
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: I thank the author for addressing many of my concerns, and I find the manuscript improved. However,
authors need to give a more clear justification of why they only used the Diffusion Approximation for Demographic Inference. What are you mean with 'we were unable to get them to consistently run on our UCE datasets'?


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: AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION OF SAMPLE SIZE EFFECTS ON POPULATION DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES IN BIRDS USING SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM (SNP) DATA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper I think is much improved from its earlier version.

Specifically, the methods are now clear and explicitly stated.
Experimental design: This study meets all the journal's standards on experimental design.
Validity of the findings: Excellent
Additional comments: Some minor comments:

Line 93-95: "While we tried other programs, we were unable to get them to consistently run on our UCE datasets (e.g., jaatha, Mathew et 95 al. 2013; IMa2p, Sethuraman & Hey 2015)." I know you added this sentence for Referee #1, but it just seems like a lame excuse for not using additional software. I personally feel that dadi is sufficient to answer the question you've asked, and so I would simply drop this line. This is ultimately up to you, but I feel that readers will not sympathize with "this is possibly important but we couldn't get it to work."


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

Input:
Title: EFFECT OF CONCURRENT TRAINING ON TRAINABILITY PERFORMANCE FACTORS IN YOUTH ELITE GOLF PLAYERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The writing style is clear to begin with but seems to lose clarity as the paper goes on. The figures need to be cleared up. The introduction provides an adequate attempt to rationalise the study but there are a numerous elements which need to be clearer.
Experimental design: Research question is clearly defined. And there appears to be a gap in the literature. The methods section needs a lot of work to attain the clarity that is needed.
Validity of the findings: It is hard to comment on the validity of the findings because the methods and results are not very clear. See below for detail.
Additional comments: Abstract
The section requires a background sentence, not just the aim.
Also, in the results there is no mention of the other outcome variables.

Introduction
The rationale is built up fairly. It would be worth trying to improve the coherency of this however. At times the sentences ‘jump’ about.
Also, you need to rationalise the key performance indicators of golf. You measure CMJ, ball speeds etc but there is no information for the reader on why these are important. I believe Jack Wells and Danny Coughlan have done some work on this with golfer from the challenge tour. You might look to his work.
Need to include a rationale for why sequencing is important. This could be from an interference effect perspective or from a fatigue management perspective.

Methods
The study section is really haphazard. You need to structure this better and condense it so it is easier to read.
Table 1 – you need to t test these to see if there are any differences between groups for these characteristics. It looks like there might be for mass and PHV
PTL isn’t a standard abbreviation as I’m aware. Also, and this is really pedantic, but the underscore makes this hard to really. Normally a hyphen is used e.g. TL-golf or TL-G. It looks like a code for an SPSS variable otherwise
If you’re measuring ball speed, did the participants use the same drivers?
L136 – should be ‘a specific  golf movement’
L143 – the ICC from the is study or a previous report?
GSCWC – you need to state the outcome metrics here. Also, you include a rationale for this test. This is a method section so you don’t need to do this here in my opinion
1RM of what exercise? You also not got a subsection for this. Its not very clear that you’re measuring two things here, max strength and optimal power
L188 make reference to the table with the programme in it
Why Kolmogorov-Smirnov instead of Shapiro-Wilk? You sample is only 16

Result
You’ve not analysed your flow chart so put this in the method
L218 a similar what? This is a bit lazy. You need to describe your data
L222 you need to report the statistics from the ANOVA i.e. the main and interaction effects
L225 please include effect size
L229 what do you mean non-logic?
There is too much to comment on in this results section. You need to report the statistics clearly; include the ANOVA results, than the post hoc test where necessary and the effect sizes. Its not clear if the effect sizes are between or within group or the time points. Given the volume of data you have you need to write this in that highlights the differences between groups.
Why have you reported percentage changes in the graphs and not the raw values?

Discussion
L251 You’ve not reported any perceived fatigue data
L253 this paragraph makes no attempt to explain your data. Remove.
L258 I think you’ve measured power and not strength? This isn’t entirely clear
L266 ‘there are many researches’ doesn’t make sense
L273 instead of providing a direction for future work here, comment on the practical implications of your work
L280 this is pedantic, but you’ve put data for percentages, so you can’t say mass. You might report the raw fat and muscle mass data. This is especially important because body mass has changed.
Need to elaborate on the Fernandez-Fernandez study because this detail isn’t clear.
L296 the sRPE scale which you used measures exertion, not fatigue. There is a massive difference. Yes the two are associated in some instances, but you’ve had not measured them in this manner.
L297 this is not a validity study. This is also a very strange paragraph.
In this section you need to discuss and explain your data. There is very little attempt to do this. It needs a wholesale change.


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: EFFECT OF CONCURRENT TRAINING ON TRAINABILITY PERFORMANCE FACTORS IN YOUTH ELITE GOLF PLAYERS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Some English fixes are necessary
Line 50: "it is necessary to...."
Line 59 & 64: the following words are jargon, erase  "In this case" "consequently"

In introduction, authors should have specific rationale relating to study purpose and hypothesis. For example, why comparing before and after golf specific training? In the introduction, there is no information about it. Line 56-59 mentioned very little specific about it relating to fatigue. Maybe because it is junior level?

Line 151-165: I believe figures of start and end position seems much easier to understand rather than descriptive.  Do you have a picture of the exercise movement?

Line 258: "improvements in muscular strength were shown between"

In discussion, it is documented that concurrent training before golf specific training works better.  However, authors should also mention that this is junior elite level golfers.  when they are matured, maybe the case would be different, means it would NOT matter when to do training because high threshold of physical activity, OR because golf performance is optimal, very little improvement in performance measure could be captured.  Also, what could happen to non-elite level junior golfers. Obviously, there are far more non-elite than elite junior players.  Would this data could be a good representation of improvement of performance measures from physical training?  Those should be mentioned as leading to future studies.
Experimental design: Line96: when "randomly divided".  specifically how? How did authors do randomization?
Validity of the findings: data seems accurate and easy to follow in the tables and figure. Very well constructed for data display
Additional comments: The purpose of the study was to investigate physical training helps junior golfers to physical gain and performance measures for golf.  The paper is very well constructed and written.  Some minor edits are necessary but overall very nice approach to identify the 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: EFFECT OF CONCURRENT TRAINING ON TRAINABILITY PERFORMANCE FACTORS IN YOUTH ELITE GOLF PLAYERS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See below comments
Experimental design: See below comments
Validity of the findings: See below comments
Additional comments: Introduction
-	L40, it isn’t clear who ‘their’ is relating to. Please rephrase. Again, the coherency of this work needs to be improved. Even the next sentence, “In this sense, according to the scientific literature…” is quite unclear.
-	L44 by definition of elite, few people become this. Can you allude to why this is different for golf?
-	L47 split this sentence into two, it is very long
-	L50 this sentence only focuses on injury, yet you write about fitness more generally beforehand
-	As per my previous comments you still haven’t rationalise your key performance markers. Instead, the information is included within the discussion (L269). If all of these factors are explained in the Alvarez and Lamberth studies, then you need to provide more detail on them in the introduction. This is not satisfactory from the authors and my original comment still stand.

Methods
-	The document that has been sent back is really poorly formatted and its quite hard to follow the methods
-	The 1RMs for exercises are still unclear
-	Amendments have been made adequately.

Results
-	You still haven’t reported a lot of the main effects, only the interactions e.g. you haven’t reported a main effect for the anthropometric data of the perceived training load.
-	Its unclear what neuromuscular training load is. The point of taking RPE is that it provides a global indication of the load. Also, what makes you think this is neuromuscular load?

Discussion
-	The discussion is much improved, but needs to be read over. Some of the sentence, here and throughout, the manuscript require greater clarity


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: EFFECT OF CONCURRENT TRAINING ON TRAINABILITY PERFORMANCE FACTORS IN YOUTH ELITE GOLF PLAYERS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is much clear after revising the document. Because of major reviews, authors have minor editorial mistakes such as putting two periods in the statement which need to be addressed.  Background information as well as relevancy of the study is well documented. Figures and Tables are clear but need to be corrected on table 1 (AG). the results seems to help practitioners to make necessary approach to train junior golfers.
Experimental design: The study purpose is very attractive to many practitioners and it is well designed with complex analysis.  Approach to the problem has detailed information of data.
Validity of the findings: Validity of finding seems very good.  However, I am concerned about how authors are now using eta squared as a definition of effect size.  To my knowledge, SPSS software automatically provide eta squared for effect size, which is somewhat concerning giving a fact that eta squared effect size is only adequate in relationship study (using correlation).  For comparison study such as this one, very common effect size method uses Cohen's D.
Additional comments: Here are some minor edits
Line 65 erase
Line 83 erase period
Table 1 handicap for AG error
Line 94 provide an explanation
Line 128 already abbreviated at Line 124
Line 133 spacing between "participant" and "was"
Line 142 erase period
Line 145 erase period


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: EFFECT OF CONCURRENT TRAINING ON TRAINABILITY PERFORMANCE FACTORS IN YOUTH ELITE GOLF PLAYERS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The paper is a well written document


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: ENRICHMENT IN CONSERVATIVE AMINO ACID CHANGES AMONG FIXED AND STANDING MISSENSE VARIATIONS IN SLOWLY EVOLVING PROTEINS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: The primary finding that amino-acid substitutions and polymorphisms in slowly evolving (conserved) genes are more conservative than those in non-slow genes is sensible and is documented reasonably by the authors.

However, I have a concern about the authors use of the term "saturation" and their interpretation of the results.

Based on the Discussion, the authors seem to take a somewhat idiosyncratic view of what "saturation" means. For a sequence to be saturated with substitutions I think generally implies that so many repeated substitutions occurred along a particularly long branch(es) that the stationary distribution has more or less been approached in subsets of the data, which can cause artificial attraction among the longest branches when inferring phylogenetic trees ("long branch attraction"). It is hard to imagine such problems occurring in human-macaque comparisons, since these are two very closely related species by any standard. The authors instead seem to be discussing a problem where individual sites are saturated with substitutions. However, their definition seems to be that any site with two or more apparent substitutions is "saturated". If this is really what they are arguing, it does not seem correct. Even parsimony based methods can deal with such cases. Perhaps they are interested in some pathology of distance-based methods, but I can't quite figure out what they are actually claiming. For the most part, I think this problem affects only the few places throughout the manuscript where "saturation" is mentioned. However, the second half of the discussion seems heavily based on the idea, which I feel is insufficiently justified and incompletely explained. Perhaps the authors can clarify why their definition of saturation is so different from the standard view from statistical phylogenetics. I recognize this aspect of the study seems to be connected with other work by these authors, however, I feel that the discussion of these matters is somewhat disconnected from the study, which is otherwise rather unobjectionable. I therefore suggest that for publication either a careful exposition of these ideas be presented that tries to reconcile the standard definition of saturation with theirs, or that this part of the discussion be removed.

One other spot where the results seem over interpreted is where the authors state "our findings here are consistent with the view that saturation is maintained by positive selection as fast evolving proteins have lower fraction of conservative changes, and inconsistent with the presently popular view that variant sites at saturation are fully neutral." First, fast evolving proteins include both neutrally evolving and positively selected genes. Second, this hardly seems like any kind of evidence that "saturation is maintained by positive selection." Third, I cannot see how any one could think that "variant sites at saturation are fully neutral". These ideas need to be more clearly expressed and justified. However, more importantly, they do not seem to me to follow from the results of the paper.
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: ENRICHMENT IN CONSERVATIVE AMINO ACID CHANGES AMONG FIXED AND STANDING MISSENSE VARIATIONS IN SLOWLY EVOLVING PROTEINS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: English used throughout the manuscript is poor and this single factor has great impact on the value of the whole study. For example, the first sentence of the whole manuscript "Proteins were first used in the early 1960s to discover the molecular clock" is inaccurate. It should be "Protein sequences were first used...". There are many places throughout the manuscript contain this type of inaccuracy and irregular use of common English. For instances, Line 68 "methods are sound provided that..." ?? and Line 74 "would cease..."
Experimental design: Authors should provide a toy example of sequences to illustrate their main point. The whole bioinformatics experiment design and procedure look puzzling.
Validity of the findings: From the nonstandard use of terminology, it seems authors who wrote the manuscript are not familiar with the fields, molecular evolution and pouplation genetics. For example, line 52-53 "gene non-identity between species" should be "sequence divergence between species". Line 76 "negative selection as defined by dN/dS ratio" should be "negative selection as measured using dN/dS ratio". Line 78-80 is difficult to understand what authors are talking about.
Additional comments: Please define "conservative mismatches".


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: ENRICHMENT IN CONSERVATIVE AMINO ACID CHANGES AMONG FIXED AND STANDING MISSENSE VARIATIONS IN SLOWLY EVOLVING PROTEINS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This revised manuscript is certainly an improved version as far as the focus and description of the research is concerned. The manuscript describes interesting findings and is clear and understandable. But it needs more elaboration and context of the analysis presented; in the introduction, and in other sections as well. For instance, Line 72 “We here found that the proportion of conservative substitutions between species….”- it would help if the introduction would include a description of what type of ‘conservative’ substitutions are being referred to. The description does not appear until the results section. In addition, it would help to specify that the analysis is limited to genome sequences of two [very] closely related species.

Likewise, the scientific names of the species being studied are not mentioned until later in the manuscript.

In the results/discussion there should be a description, even if brief, as to, (a) why results based on the delta_V matrix are different from other substitution matrices, (b) the context in which these substitution matrices were derived, compared to the BLOSUM matrices, i.e. estimates of substitution rates from sequences in relatively closely related clades. Similarly, the tertiary structural context of the estimated substitutions, which is relevant to the discussion of the strength of selection on the measured mutations would be appropriate.
Experimental design: Methods used to identify and quantify conservative mutations are adequate, even if simplistic, for the patterns that the authors seek to characterize. But the description can be more explicit. For example, since all the analyses are based on pairwise sequence alignments (one sequence per species) generated by the BLASTP algorithm, it will be useful to know if the alignments were generated using the BLOSUM-62 matrix (the default for the BLASTP algorithm), even when the other substitution matrices (EX, delta_V and delta_P) were used to identify and quantify the conservative substitutions in the sequence alignments. It is relevant to know if there are any differences in the alignments generated using the BLOSUM-62 matrix compared to alignments generated using the other matrices, and if the variation in alignment would affect the quantification of conservative substitutions. This could be interesting, if not a cause for concern, for fast-evolving proteins (as defined by the authors) that have lower sequence identities, especially for gapped alignments.

Performance of BLASTP alignments can often be weak when comparing sequences that show medium to high divergence (but not necessarily sequences derived from highly divergent species). See also comment regarding Table 1.
Validity of the findings: The main findings that conservative substitutions are enriched in slowly evolving proteins, and that it is correlated with minor allele frequency is interesting. The conclusions are reasonable in the context of the measurements reported. However, there are some caveats given, (a) the very strict definition/classification of the slowly evolving proteins (99% identity), (b) that the analyses are limited to pair-wise sequence alignments, and (c) restricted to very closely related species. By contrast, how different are the results likely to be if we were to extend (or repeat) the analyses using multiple species/alignments instead of pairwise-alignments? The authors’ definition of slowly evolving proteins (99% identity) may not be broadly applicable. It is quite likely that the results will be different even if proteins from multiple species of the genus Macaca were to be analyzed, let alone comparing many species from different genera, or larger clades such as Old World and New World monkeys, or primates as a whole. The point is, the limitations of the pairwise comparisons should be discussed, rather than the broad implications that the authors seem to indicate. Presumably the fraction of proteins that can be classified as ‘slowly evolving’ might drop substantially. Ideally, running the analysis on multiple alignments of a few orthologous families, if not for all the proteins pairs, would be useful (see also a related note regarding Table-1 under “Comments for the author”).

This is not to question the validity of the findings/conclusions, but to consider the limitations of the experimental design and the context of the measurements, as well as the extent to which the findings can be extrapolated. The article (and readers) would benefit in general if issues of more direct relevance to the core results are discussed, in addition to the explanation of what saturation means. For example, why the trends are different in quantifications based on the delta_V matrix compared to other substitution matrices in Figure 1.

It would be valuable to also discuss why/where pairwise comparisons would be relevant and useful, and where they may not be. After all, the toy example in figure 4 is more relevant to multiple alignments for comparing multiple taxa. Saturation in faster evolving proteins is not inconceivable given the estimated divergence times of several to many millions of years between closely related species.

In addition, although the EX, delta_P and delta_V matrices remove the probabilistic element compared to the BLOSUM matrices, they are coarse-grained estimates. These matrices do not consider site-specific substitution patterns, as in PSI-BLAST and the PSSM used therein, which is relevant to multiple sequence alignments and multi-species comparisons. This may be relevant to conclusions about the strength of selection. For instance, the relatively simplistic linear sequence-based pairwise measurements used by the authors do not take into account the co-evolution and co-variation of substitutions due to the physico-chemical constraints on protein structure and folding (see Pollock et al, 2012, PMID: 22547823).  In this context, the suitability and efficacy of the dN/dS ratios to measure selection has been criticized (see Drummond and Wilke, 2008, PMID: 18662548). The EX, delta_P and delta_V matrices (Braun, PMID: 29950007; Braun and Pandey, 2020, doi: 10.1101/2020.01.28.923458) that explicitly consider the effects/context of protein structure, in addition to the population parameters. The delta_P and delta_V matrices were derived from soluble proteins; transmembrane proteins were excluded from the estimations (see also next paragraph). Therefore, a discussion of the coevolution of sequence in the context of protein structure, and the efficacy of dN/dS for measuring the extent of selection are directly relevant to the analyses and results presented.

Going back to the performance of BLASTP alignments that was mentioned in the Experimental Design section, the data presented in Table 1 indicates a potential issue. This could also indicate a limitation of the current experimental design. Assuming that the numbers of proteins in the different categories (column 6) are non-overlapping sets of proteins, I counted a total of 15,019 proteins (or protein pairs?). Given that both human and Macaca genomes are estimated to have about 20,000 protein coding genes, I am curious why roughly a fourth of the proteins are not included in the analyses. Do they produce poor alignments?

Regarding implications for phylogenetic inference, a discussion, even if brief, would be valuable instead of simply stating “…. and have implications for phylogenetic inferences” (line 319). This brief prelude is more appropriate in the abstract.
Since phylogenetic analysis is always based on multiple alignments, how would the findings here be applicable. What are the implications? What type of phylogenetic inference: Of very closely related species of the Macaca genus? Or of primates in general? Or more general?
Additional comments: Minor edits/revisions:

Table 1: It will be useful to give an overview of the fraction of proteins per species analyzed: either a pie chart or a Venn diagram or both.

Line 77: "... less natural selection" should be “weaker natural selection”?
Line 225: Fixed and "stranding" should be "standing"?

Please check for similar issues.


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: DIFFERENCES IN THE SUPPORT NEEDS OF CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AMONG GROUPS OF MEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment (all is good); here are a few e minor text edits I suggest: on line 120 there should be no etc. after the e.g. - e.g., means example given and "etcetera" is not an example. Line 140 should be "Personal data were stored ..." not 'was" because data is a plural word.
Experimental design: Overall, the authors research procedures and data analyses were clearly communicated. I am confused about only one thing. The paragraph starting on line 178 refers to support needs factors and method factors. On line 202 the authors refer to substantive factors. Are the substantive factors the same as the support needs factors? if so, please use consistent terminology. If not, please clarify the differences.
Validity of the findings: no comment (the results made sense and were communicated clearly- nice job!)
Additional comments: I think an important omission in the discussion was that the authors did not comment on the potential influence that having the large majority of their participants attending a special school may of had on support needed for "school learning" activities. The SIS-C calls for rating support needs in relation to learning in general education classrooms, not learning in a special schools. School learning in a general education classroom for children with intellectual disability requires considerable support to differentiate instruction that promotes student learning compared to learning what is taught in a special school. On the other hand, supports that are needed for school participation may not be particularly different between the special school and general education classroom for students with intellectual disability and special health care needs. Participation is different from learning. My point is, since most of the students in this study were not in general education classrooms the intensity of supports needed for school learning may not be as accurately reflected compared to the other sub-scales, including school participation. Thus, the conclusion on line 254 may be partially an artifact of the context of the students' educational placement.  I am not suggesting that the study was in any way flawed, but I am suggesting it is worth noting (with a sentence or two) that the finding that the influence of medical conditions on support needs was different in the school learning activities domain compared to the other support needs domains might be explained by the context in which the majority of participants were receiving their education. At least, it is a question for future researchers to investigate. I hope this critique is helpful.


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: DIFFERENCES IN THE SUPPORT NEEDS OF CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AMONG GROUPS OF MEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL NEEDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Abstract: authors are suggested to add methods performed for the analysis of data (e.g.: four groups were compared through…)

Introduction/background: A greater attention should be given to the background and theory supporting this research, strengthening the specific importance of such study. Therefore, authors are suggested to deep in the medical and behavioral support needs’ impact in daily life/supports provision instead of just focused the support model (which is well done as a form to introduce the topic). This will help in discussion or in conclusion to add some practical recommendations for the identification of priorities (as stated in line 67). Further, some studies and results that identified factors, even if with other type of disability, could be detailed (e.g.: line 70-71: youths with severe intellectual disability need more medical support but not much behavioral support – do original authors give some explanation?).

Minor editings
Although I’m not an English native speaker and the writing is generally clear it would benefit from minor English editing (e.g.: line 91: The sample comprised of 911 children…)
Experimental design: Participants: maybe authors could add why children do not signed the informed consent or at least gave their oral consent; how authors controlled the “co-morbility associated” dependence? In participants section authors could add more information about the respondents (including the type of professionals/family member relationship, ages….
Instrument: I understand the tension between space and content, but it would be good to provide some brief information on (a) psychometric properties and b) systems of collecting data by the original authors
Procedures: Please clarify information on interviewer (or interviewers) as well as all application procedures: how many trained interviewers and their main characteristics; was anyone else present besides participants and researchers? were field notes made during and/or after interviews? what was an average duration of the interview? How was intellectual functioning level’ measured?
Validity of the findings: Discussion: this section has not, in my view, been expanded sufficiently beyond the descriptive. There needs to be more emphasis on why these results are important and the precise implications (e.g.: line 288: effect sizes in School learning domain were smaller than in other domains; little differences between moderate and high levels of needs – was this expected?; presence of medical need is no longer significant at high and very high levels ). Maybe authors could strengthen this section adding some explanations. Author(s) are also invited to strengthen the discussion: what is the worth-value of such a study and how findings could be “used” in others countries?
Finally authors are encouraged to add some recommendations based on this study findings.
Additional comments: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript that presented research in an important area and provides more evidences in children with developmental disabilities’ characterization. Medical and behavioral needs and its assessment is relevant data for a more adjusted supports provision, and for a life with more quality. The sections are appropriate with suitable headings for a research article, the literature is well referenced and relevant and all data is supplied. It appears a carefully designed and rigorous study. Still some aspects of the manuscript could get improved and I will described some comments, hoping that my suggestions would further strengthen the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: CHANGES IN MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING THE FLEXION AND EXTENSION PHASES OF ARM CYCLING AS AN EFFECT OF POWER OUTPUT ARE MUSCLE-SPECIFIC
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well-written with professional English grammar throughout. The literature cited is relevant and provides the relevant background information required to introduce the topic. The results are well-aligned with the hypothesis of the authors. I have only one comment about a reference choice below.

Line 53 - Klarner et al 2016: This study is about arm and leg cycling - perhaps the authors meant to reference Kaupp et al 2018 from the same group?

Additionally, the figure resolutions seem to be very low. Perhaps a higher resolution could be used?
Experimental design: The concept of a linear relationship between EMG amplitude of many muscles and cycling intensity is novel and well-explored in this manuscript. One main point requires clarification, however.

It is unclear whether data was acquired from all participants for all muscles. In the supplemental table, it only has data from 6 participants for muscles other than TB and BB. Can the authors please clarify?
Validity of the findings: The conclusions are fine, with the exception of one point, which arises in three places: 1) abstract, 2) beginning of the discussion and 3) in the conclusion paragraph. The authors conclude that TB and ECR iEMG are not modulated by phase and this might be overstated. Perhaps it would be more suited to state that iEMG did not differ between elbow flexion and extension phases of cycling, rather than that it is not phase-dependent. Currently, the authors acknowledge that they only measured two phases by saying “In the present study we separated and assessed iEMG activity during two phases, flexion (3 to 9 o’clock) and extension (9 to 3 o’clock) relative to the elbow joint and not at specific points of the cycle” but this is still problematic for the determination of whether a muscle exhibits phase-dependent modulation of muscle activity. As the number of bins decreases, the resolution of phasic modulation of muscle activity is lost. Many authors in the past have analyzed rhythmic motor output with varying numbers of bins (or phases) within the movement cycle that range from 6 (Marigold et al 2017 Exp Br Res) to 16 bins (Hoogkamer et al 2015 J Neurophysiology). To correctly identify whether phase-dependent modulation occurs in a muscle during rhythmic muscle activity, more than two phases would be required.  Of particular importance is that the peak iEMG for ECR in this study is at the point where the authors have defined as a phase transition. If this point was defined differently, for example in relation to the shoulder, this iEMG would be phase-dependent (based on two phases only). Furthermore, if additional phases were added, such that there were 4 or more phases, there would certainly be phase-dependent modulation of TB activity. In addition to tempering this conclusion, a comment to acknowledge the limitations associated with only having only two phases in a task where there are certainly more phases would be helpful in the limitations section.

Lines 212-213: Please indicate if data were checked for normality

Figure 2: I believe the y-axes may be incorrect. Should they actually be %MVC? I thought they were normalized to maximum EMG that was determined during the sprint?
Additional comments: This is a revised version of a manuscript that I have previously reviewed for another journal, and I would like to acknowledge the improvements that have been made by the authors.

Line 117: guidelines instead of guideline?

Line 188: where should this parenthesis close?

Line 191: perhaps this could read: "which was then used to normalize the amplitude of all sub-maximal cycling trials"

Line 330-331: "They suggested the increased EMG amplitude as cycling intensity increased was due to the recruitment of additional type 2 muscle fibres..." - This seems irrelevant here. There are many reasons why EMG would increase and it does not add to the current discussion. In addition, the previous authors were speculating, so I am not sure that referencing speculation here is helpful.

Lines 409-411: Perhaps this statement could use a reference - Pearcey, Power and Button 2014?


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: CHANGES IN MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING THE FLEXION AND EXTENSION PHASES OF ARM CYCLING AS AN EFFECT OF POWER OUTPUT ARE MUSCLE-SPECIFIC
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: You have considered how electrical activity varies according to a wide range of external power outputs, as well as two distinct (push-pull) phases of the crank cycle. Data is original and adds to existing knowledge, but I have identified a few methodological issues that require some consideration and acknowledgement within the manuscript. You also identified that this exercise mode is relevant in the context of (clinical) rehabilitation; can authors, therefore, please consider/ identify how their findings may lead to practical applications.


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: CHANGES IN MUSCLE ACTIVITY DURING THE FLEXION AND EXTENSION PHASES OF ARM CYCLING AS AN EFFECT OF POWER OUTPUT ARE MUSCLE-SPECIFIC
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author's have addressed my concerns. I believe the manuscript has been much improved.
Experimental design: n/a
Validity of the findings: n/a
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: EFFECT OF SHOOTING EXPERIENCE ON EXECUTIVE FUNCTION: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXPERTS AND NOVICES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript reports a result of the difference in executive control functions between three different groups, namely, the expert shooters, novice shooters, and the non-experienced controls. The authors aimed to examine how the executive function, in this case, the suppressed processes, might differ from the participants with different expertise. The data exhibited the response rate was higher in the expert group than the control group, suggesting a better information processing and higher efficiency in the cortical connection. This manuscript is clear and concise, and the authors show a revealing command of future studies. The authors have done a great job on providing an informative and meaningful addition to the literature on the application of the insights of cortical processing regarding the expertise.

However, there are several changes that the authors are encouraged to revise to elevate the overall contribution of the paper to this research field.
Experimental design: Line 43-55. In this paragraph, the authors tried to explain the logical connections between the prefrontal cortex and the executive function. One missing link is missing here is the rationale of examining the logical relationships on closed sports. The readers might wonder why closed sports can also generate positive effects on executive function. Furthermore, is this beneficial effect a general influenced effect on motor performance or more referring to the task-specific phenomena?
2.    Line 58. The authors might want to dig deeper in these references to secure the statement “training can increase α and β bands in the brain region”  Are these references are cross-sectional studies or longitudinal studies?
3.    Line 59-66. In this section, the authors tried to establish a relationship between sport training and cognitive functions. However, the processes to perform a motor behavior is complicated, and this session requires more evidence to support the rationale of investigating the cognitive functions and sport training. In addition, the authors may want to add more information to help explain the reason for using the shooting task.
4.    Line 67-76. Again, the readers would be confused here as little supportive evidence to show the importance of using Flanker to probe the participants in three expertise categories.
Validity of the findings: 5.    Line 113. One concern regarding the manipulation check of the task is that did the experimenters ask the participants to keep the finger on the button when performing the task?
6.    Results. The authors are recommended to report the effect size for the statistical analyses in this study.
7.    Line 136-137. “The difference between the expert and novice groups was not significant for congruent trails, nor for incongruent trails” The readers may want to get to know the possible explanations in the discussion.
8.    Line 165. The response time was also higher in the expert group when compared to the control group?
9.    Line 170. The “intervention training” This term creates a noticeable confusion here. Theses references did not provide the intervention in the studies.  The authors are recommended for providing more information regarding this issue.
10.    Line 175. How the authors can state the results which the executive function contributed the shooting expertise? Specifically, why the performance of suppression serves as a critical factor here to be relating to the shooting performance?
11.    Line 188. “Closed exercise” Do the authors try to refer the closed skill in sports?
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: EFFECT OF SHOOTING EXPERIENCE ON EXECUTIVE FUNCTION: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXPERTS AND NOVICES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Please see the general comments.
Experimental design: Please see the general comments.
Validity of the findings: The validity of the findings should be carefully checked by the authors.
Additional comments: General comments for the author

The current study examined the differences in executive function using a flanker task between shooting players with different expertise level, as well as non-athletic controls. Findings suggest task performance of the expert group were better that of the novice group. With these findings the authors concluded that long-term participation in shooting can improve executive function as well as neural efficiency. Without question, this type of work is needed in the field to better understand what cognitive and neural processes differentiate individual difference with different sports expertise level. However, the current manuscript would benefit from several conceptual, methodological, and reporting changes. The reviewer presents these thoughts and concerns below.

Abstract
More details of the main findings should be presented explicitly.

Introduction
The major concern is the examination of neural efficiency without recording any brain data, which may preclude any inference about neural processing. If any behavioral index has the capacity to demonstrate neural efficiency during cognitive processes, please state clearly with appropriate citations.

The rationale for this type of investigation is still unclear. More clear and stronger reasons are needed not just this study was conducted simply due to only few studies focusing on closed-skill sports.

Because this study specifically focused on shooting athletes, this reviewer suggests to provide more relevant literature about the cognitive and neural characteristics of this particular type of athletes, especially in those demonstrating neural efficiency in shooting athletes.

Line 56, please provide citations to support the statements here. I believe that not all research has failed to demonstrate the relationship between systematic training and neural efficiency during executive functioning.

Line 58 – 61, it seems likely that the EEG findings observed in these literature contract with the neural efficiency assumption, with the evidence showing greater EEG activities in professional shooters. Please clarify.

Please provide reasons regarding the choice of flanker task. For example, why the cognitive inhibition of executive function is crucial for examining the neural efficiency of expert shooter?

Line 67, because this study adopted a cross-sectional design, it may not be able to address the effect of training. Please modify the study purpose accordingly.

Line 73 – 76, the hypothesis is not clear here. Why the expertise effect may differ across incongruent and congruent conditions? Please provide citations to support this argument.

Methods & data processing
Please provide statistical analysis for the demographic data. One of the shortcomings is the age difference across groups that may potentially bias the effects of interest.

Since executive function may strongly vary with intelligence, education levels, depressive status, cardiorespiratory fitness, years of training experience, and so on. If any, these data should be presented, preferably in a sample characteristics table.

The procedure for data reduction should be clearly described.

This reviewer strongly suggest that the authors should check the data carefully. The data presented in the table seems very unreasonable (i.e., RT < 200ms or accuracy < 50%).

For the statistical analysis of RT, because the interaction between the two factors did not reach the significance level, it is not appropriate to examine the group effect for each condition, separately. Importantly, on the basis of the RT data presented in this study, it seems that the RT was faster for the controls relative to that of expert & novice (also see Table 1), which is completely inconsistent with the conclusion of this study (see abstract & discussion).

Discussion
Thus far, I feel unable to evaluate the discussion until the concerns above could be appropriate addressed.

Conclusion
The conclusion can not be supported by the data presented in this study.


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

Input:
Title: EFFECT OF SHOOTING EXPERIENCE ON EXECUTIVE FUNCTION: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXPERTS AND NOVICES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has been improved significantly; the authors have my congrats. However, there are several changes that the authors are encouraged to revise to fine-tune the manuscript to meet the standard of publishing on PeerJ.
Experimental design: No further issues concerning the experimental design
Validity of the findings: Further information regarding the validity of the findings is listed in the general comments
Additional comments: 1.	Line 24-33. Although the authors provided further information on the main results of this study, the results provided here do not point out any conclusive evidence which supports the neural efficiency, which states on line 33.
2.	Line 44. Please explain the findings of these cited research regarding the lower activation of the brain is associated with a higher skill level.
3.	Line 51. This paragraph contains way too many contexts, leading to great difficulty in comprehending this information. The functional role of prefrontal cortex and the types of exercise are recommended to be separated into two paragraphs. Incidentally, what is the definition of open and close exercise?
4.	Line 81. Do the authors try to state that shooting is part of close exercises here?
5.	Line 90. How do the studies (from Hillman et al. and Hatfield) state that the shooting training can improve the brain waves? Are these studies cross-sectional or longitudinal?
6.	Line 92. The authors are recommended to provide further information regarding these studies. And, how these studies can be related to the aim of this manuscript?
7.	Line 96. There is no evidence, from the texts, showing that the neural efficiency is behind the findings cited in this paragraph. The readers would be confused about how these pieces of evidence can contribute to the hypotheses.
8.	Line 104. The readers might wonder what the ACC refers to.
9.	Line 150. The authors are encouraged to inform the readers about the types of effect size and the criteria used in this manuscript.