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: JATROPHA CURCAS ORTHOLOG OF TOMATO MADS-BOX GENE 6 (JCTM6) PROMOTER EXHIBITS FLORAL-SPECIFIC ACTIVITY IN ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: An aim of this study is isolation of the promoter that is specifically active in the flower. The author’s experiments are all necessary to reveal the flower-specific promoter activity of JcTM6 in Arabidopsis and the results are support their hypothesis. However, a part of the experiments is not enough.
My concern on the experimental design is the deletion analysis of the JcTM6 promoter (Figure 5). Authors searched the putative cis elements in the JcTM6 promoter using PLACE database and found that many putative sequences of the four type of cis elements were located in the promoter (Figure 3). Then, they analyzed a deletion JcTM6 promoter using Arabidopsis transgenic plants, but it is thought that this deletion analysis is very rough. Authors discussed cis elements that is required for the stamen (and petal) specific activity of the JcTM6 promoter region and proposed that a CArG motif, that is located around -1,060-bp region of the promoter, is important for the specific manner (Line 233 to 235). However, because another two motifs, GTGA and AGAAA, are also included in the deletion region between -1,717 bp and -875 bp (Figure 3 and 5), it is also possible that the GUS activity of the deletion promoter may result from the combined effect of deletion of CArG, GTGA and AGAAA. Therefore, authors should carry out the deletion promoter analyses using several types of the deletion JcTM6 promoter that have different length of the deletion regions. Alternatively, authors should analyze the promoter that include mutations or deletion in the CArG motif that is located around -1,060 bp region. These results from mentioned above analyses will be help to understand the promoter activity and regulatory mechanism of the JcTM6 promoter that is shown a flower-specific activity.
Validity of the findings: Another my concern is the JcTM6 promoter activity in petals. The qRT-PCR analysis of JcTM6 in Jatropha (Figure 2) indicated that highly amount of its transcript is detected in the petals of male and female Jatropha flowers like as in stamens of male flower. Ming et al. (2020) reported that the GUS activity of the JcTM6 promoter:GUS fusion gene was observed in the petals of female flowers in Jatropha. The JcTM6 promoter:AtIPT4 transgenic plants (Figure 6) have large petals in its flowers compared to that in wild type. There results suggested that the JcTM6 promoter is active in either Arabidopsis petals or Jatropha petals. In contrast, In the JcTM6 promoter:GUS analysis (Figure 4), authors mentioned that faintly GUS staining was observed in the Arabidopsis petals (Line 168). This result is not enough to support the possibility that the promoter is active in the petals. Considering these matters, I recommend authors that they should carry out the histochemical analysis of the promoter:GUS fusion gene in the different stages during flower development to confirm whether strong promoter activity is observed in the Arabidopsis petals.
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: JATROPHA CURCAS ORTHOLOG OF TOMATO MADS-BOX GENE 6 (JCTM6) PROMOTER EXHIBITS FLORAL-SPECIFIC ACTIVITY IN ARABIDOPSIS THALIANA
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Thank you for revisions of your manuscript. I agree your all change of this manuscript to respond my concerns. I would like to recommend you one point in the "Discussion" section as follows;

Line 215 to 216:
In transgenic Arabidopsis, GUS staining showed that the JcTM6 promoter was active only in flowers (Fig. 4), suggesting that the JcTM6 promoter is a flower-specific promoter.
->
In transgenic Arabidopsis, GUS staining showed that the JcTM6 promoter was active only in flowers (Fig. 4 "and Fig. S1"), suggesting that the JcTM6 promoter is a flower-specific promoter.

It would be my pleasure if you will consider my suggestion.


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: LCC: AN R PACKAGE TO ESTIMATE THE CONCORDANCE CORRELATION, PEARSON CORRELATION AND ACCURACY OVER TIME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I was able to reproduce nearly all the results in the paper, but the three bootstrap results slightly differed. This is easily addressed using set.seed(). In addition, I have suggestions for making reproducibility easier. The figures are very nice.

Major:
a) Bootstrapping Reproducibility: set.seed(random.number) to make bootstrapping return identical results every time. Sometimes I got no convergence errors and other times I got a different number of errors than reported in the paper. Fortunately, this a really easy to address.

set.seed(532)
m.bfat.1 <- lcc(data = bfat, subject = "SUBJECT", resp = "BF", method = "MET",  time = "TIME", qf = 1, qr = 1, components = TRUE, ci = T, nboot = 10000)
m.hue.2 ….
m.bw.2 …

Minor:
a) Suggest creating Rmd: It'll be much easier to reproduce the results using an R Markdown file that is self-contained.

b) Suggest loading all required packages and datasets at the start:
if (!require("pacman")) install.packages("pacman")
pacman::p_load(lcc, cccrm, dplyr, reshape2, tidyverse)

#Datasets:
load(file = "simulated_hue_block.RData")
load(file = "simulated_hue.RData")
data(bfat, package = "cccrm")
data(hue)
data(bdaw, package = "cccrm")

Ideally, the two hue datasets could be added to lcc package instead of being loaded separately. This is a minor issue, but it is an extra step to download the data and then load it.

Also, I recommend adding sessionInfo() and saving all the plots in an Rmd.
Experimental design: The research question for the proposed methods is very well defined. I was able to reproduce the results, with one exception noted above with bootstrapping.
Validity of the findings: Overall, the findings are valid and rigorious. Howver, this is one interpretation that I think should be restated.

On line 632: “As the p-value was 0.8935, we can conclude that there is no interaction effect and, consequently, the ﬁtted curves for each level of method over time can be considered parallel.”  Non-significance does not necessarily imply the null (no difference), see Greenland et al. (2016), point 6: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3

It would be safer to interpret this result as model 5 and model 4 are not clearly distinguishable using the likelihood test ratio, see Burnham and Anderson’s (2007) book Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. However, the lower AIC and BIC values for model 4 indicate it is more plausible. I think this is a great opportunity to show an example of a more cautious interpretation. It’s not uncommon to see cherry picking of fit indices. Admittedly, it’s messy when fit statistics conflict because the interpretation is no longer straightforward. I would argue that messiness reflects the reality of the data and models.
Additional comments: The paper is very well written and the R package is sound. Documentation of the R package is excellent. I was able to reproduce all the results in the paper, notwithstanding the main issue raised in the basic reporting section; but that is an easy fix. The lcc package has great functionality with support for common functions such as anova() and plot(). Graphs in the paper are impressive and nicely illustrate the models and model diagnositics. I'll definitely be using this package, I have data with mulitple raters for items over time.

Major Comments:

a) Limits of Agreement: I'm going to caveat this first point by saying I have limited knowledge of the biostatistics literature. Still, I interpret limits of agreement (LoA), the range of absolute agreement or exchangability for two methods, as being different than accuracy along the 45 degree diagonal line because the ground truth value is often unknown. Therefore, it would be useful to mention LoA because two measures/methods can be very highly correlated, yet have a wide range of absolute exchangeability. Here’s an example of different measurements tumor size, near perfect concordance correlations with a broad range of exchangeability: https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/pdf/10.1148/radiol.2522081593

The R MethComp package can handle repeated measures for LoA:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MethComp/index.html
Repeated measures for LoA is specialized area, most LoA is done with independent observations: https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aem214

Even though the Bland-Altman method papers are very highly cited (one is in the top 10 of all cited papers in biostats), the distinction between limits of agreement and agreement using correlation is still frequently overlooked. To add to the confusion, LoA is also called method comparison, Bland-Altman analysis/method/plot, and Tukey Mean-Difference Plot.

Original papers:
Bland JM,  Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement, Lancet, 1986i(pg. 307-10)
Bland JM,  Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading, Lancet, 1995, vol 346 (pg. 1085-7)
Bland JM,  Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies, Statisical Methods in Medical Research, 1999, vol 8 (pg. 135-60

Good tutorial paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4470095/

b) Incorrect models for time-series data: To demonstrate what not do and also show why Icc is valuable, consider adding examples of incorrect models.

Specifically, treating non-independent data as independent by fitting conventional ICC models. I’m not aware of any examples of this for reliability stats, but in general this is done more often than one would think: see Aarts (2014).
Aarts, E., Verhage, M., Veenvliet, J. V., Dolan, C. V., & Van Der Sluis, S. (2014). A solution to dependency: using multilevel analysis to accommodate nested data. Nature neuroscience, 17(4).

Another incorrect possibility is to average data and then fit a ICC conventional model.

Minor
a) Connections to multilevel modeling: Is the longitudinal correlation ever the same as the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICCs) in multilevel modeling? I think this is only for a particular multilevel model (unconditional growth model)? I remember Singer and Willett’s (2003) book, Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis, mentioned this. Unfortunately, that book is in my office right now.

b) Performance: This is a wish-list item for the future, in the package rather than the manuscript- if possible, any performance improvements would be wonderful. Example run times on an i7-4770 running Windows 10 with BLAS:

- Approximate run time: Hours, probably? I ran the bootstrapping code overnight.
m.bfat.1 <- lcc(data = bfat, subject = "SUBJECT", resp = "BF",
         method = "MET",  time = "TIME", qf = 1, qr = 1,
           components = TRUE, ci = T, nboot = 10000)

- Approximate run time: 9 minutes
m.bfat.2 <- update(m.bfat.1, lme.control = list(opt = "optim"))

I’m guessing this is going to be extremely difficult, especially with multilevel models and because it looks like the Icc uses nlme? I'm pretty sure nlme doesn't have multi-CPU support. lme4 has multi-CPU support for models and bootstrapping. Bootstrapping may be the best starting point for parallelization.


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: LCC: AN R PACKAGE TO ESTIMATE THE CONCORDANCE CORRELATION, PEARSON CORRELATION AND ACCURACY OVER TIME
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: See my comments to the authors
Experimental design: See my comments to the authors
Validity of the findings: See my comments to the authors
Additional comments: The authors developed a nice r-package for a very important statistical and practical concordance/agreement item, which has a very broad application. It is very important to have computational tool ready for advanced statistical methods. There are many r-packages for assessing the agreement of two measurement methods. A most recent one is named "AgreementInterval" which includes commonly used index approaches such as the CCC and the interval approaches along with graphic tools. The current r-package particularly focuses on the agreement for longitudinal data.

1. The authors used the early proposed concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and the accuracy index C_{b} (Lin, 1989). However, as pointed out by Liao & Lewis (2000), there are many concerns regarding the metrics. For example, the C_{b} sometimes gives unexplainable results, or totally misleading results. To enhance Lin's CCC, Liao (2003) developed a new concordance correlation coefficient built on Lin's CCC by using two random paired measurements to the line of identity and improved the inferential ability of the new method. This approach increased the assessment accuracy. These facts should be mentioned in the introduction section so that the readers/practitioners can use their subject knowledge to judge the appropriateness of the derived metrics.

2. As the authors pointed out in the article, there are many cases where the agreement is needed for the curved data. The authors studied the agreement for a structured longitudinal data. However, the first paper in the literature for agreement in curved data without any structured assumption was proposed in Liao (2005) using a general non-parametric approach. This information should be mentioned in the introduction section so that the readers/practitioners can use their subject knowledge to judge if their data have the defined longitudinal structure.

•	Liao, J.J.Z. and Lewis, J. (2000), “A Note on Concordance Correlation Coefficient”, PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, 54(1), 23 – 26.
•	Liao, J.J.Z. (2003), “An Improved Concordance Correlation Coefficient”. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 2(4), 253 – 261.
•	Liao, J.J.Z. (2005), “Agreement for Curved Data”, J. of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 15, 195 – 203.
•      CRAN - Package AgreementInterval:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/AgreementInterval/index.html


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: LCC: AN R PACKAGE TO ESTIMATE THE CONCORDANCE CORRELATION, PEARSON CORRELATION AND ACCURACY OVER TIME
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: NA
Experimental design: NA
Validity of the findings: NA
Additional comments: The authors answered my early comments. However, a new comment is about the discussion statement for the Bland-Altman method in the discussion section in the updated version. Many discussions can be found about this Bland-Altman method. As mentioned in the review paper by Scholz, et al. (2015), when two methods/techniques are being compared without a ‘golden standard’ or ‘true’ reference which is usually the case in applications, an improved Bland-Altman approach by Liao and Capen (2011) should be the first choice as the statistic procedure. The authors can found out the advantages of the improved Bland-Altman method in detail in Liao and Capen (2011). I do think it is important and necessary to mention this fact there.

Liao, J.J.Z. and Capen, R. (2011), “An Improved Bland-Altman Method for Concordance Assessment”, The International Journal of Biostatistics, Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 9, 1 – 17.

Scholz, et. al., 2015, “Non-invasive methods for the determination of body and carcass composition in livestock: Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound: Invited review”, in animal 9(07):1-15


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: ESTIMATING THE IMPACT OF LOCK-DOWN, QUARANTINE AND SENSITIZATION IN A COVID-19 OUTBREAK: LESSONS FROM THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is written clear, well structures, with good illustrations and extensive (213!) references.
Experimental design: Very good experimental support for the model and the way how manuscript is designed.
Validity of the findings: Very important findings. Due to the urgent situation on understanding the best strategies in  dealing with COVID-19, I think, the message of the paper and the model should be available for community and manuscript should be published ASAP.
Additional comments: I believe this is a good and important work helping to discover the strategies in managing COVID-19 pandemics.


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: ESTIMATING THE IMPACT OF LOCK-DOWN, QUARANTINE AND SENSITIZATION IN A COVID-19 OUTBREAK: LESSONS FROM THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this paper authors have developed a mathematical model on COVID-19 outbreak. They have compared the model simulation result with the real data collected from china. They claimed that the quarantine (isolation) is the most effective way to control the disease. The analysis are interesting and realistic. The paper can be accepted for publication after major revision.

I have the following suggestions:

1. Organization of paper is not good.
2.  Authors should mention the section number (for example 1. Introduction, 2. Methods,
     2.1 Model development etc.).
3.  Authors should replace Model analyses section by Equilibrium points and Basic reproduction
     number.
4.  Detail calculation for the evaluation of basic reproduction number is missing.
5.  Endemic equilibrium point is missing.
6.  Authors should check the local and global stability of the disease free and endemic equilibrium point.
7.  Authors have drawn different figures to study the effectiveness of control parameters but the optimal
     control problem is not defined.
8.  Author should introduce the detail calculations for optimal control problem.
9. Authors should display the data collected from China in numerical simulation section.
10.  Before revision, authors are advised to study and introduce the following papers in reference section

     South Asian J. Math 4 (2), 69-84 (2014)
     Fuzzy Information and Engineering 9 (3), 381-401(2017)
     Computational and Applied Mathematics 37 (2), 1330-1351(2018)
     Biophysical Reviews and Letters 14 (01), 27-48(2019)
     International Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Numerical Simulation 19(6), 627–
      642(2018)
     International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 30 (04), 2050054 (2020)
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: The authors should display the data within the manuscript.
Additional comments: Standard of your paper will be increased if you can successfully implement the suggestions. Best of luck!


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: ESTIMATING THE IMPACT OF LOCK-DOWN, QUARANTINE AND SENSITIZATION IN A COVID-19 OUTBREAK: LESSONS FROM THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well written and presented, also easy to understand even to the audience outside computational/mathematical modeling field.
Experimental design: There has been previous studies focusing on using computer-based modeling to address the onset and development of COVID-19 outbreaks in different parts of the world, including China etc.. However, It is interesting to the authors presenting modeling data relating to the effectiveness of multiple control measure regarding COVID-19. Drawing real data from China as basis of the presented modeling and providing insights to other parts of the world seems feasible and meaningful.

It seems reasonable for the authors to try to answer a medical-social problem by conduct such mathematical simulation. Especially when the measures recommended by authorities are being questioned and some of the recommendations in different countries even contradict in certain degree.
Validity of the findings: Nevertheless, it has been a common sense  that the 3 key issues to prevent any infectious/contagious disease should always be: 1) Controlling the source of infection; 2) Cutting off the channels of transmission; and 3) Protecting susceptible/vulnerable population. The last one could be reached by immunization or vaccination, which in current case, would take around one year to develop a vaccine. Therefore, I would suggest the authors categorize different control measures taken and examine whether the approach examined is effective (could further elaborate in the Discussion Part).

Given the nature that SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious, it would be less likely to control the source of infection, and cutting off the channels of transmission (e.g. quarantine and isolation of confirmed COVID-19 individuals, etc.) seemed more effective, which is consistent with what the manuscript has presented so far. I would believe that by linking these medical interpretations with the mathematical contents would make the article for powerful and convincing.
Additional comments: Please add more infectious disease science or public health science related content in the Discussion Part to make the article a stronger one.


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: ESTIMATING THE IMPACT OF LOCK-DOWN, QUARANTINE AND SENSITIZATION IN A COVID-19 OUTBREAK: LESSONS FROM THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK IN CHINA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 4

Output:
Basic reporting: I have pointed out in the attached annotated document where improvements in the language may be done
Experimental design: The authors need to review their use of the term susceptibility in the document. My argument is that the model captures this word as reducing the number of susceptible individuals and that is why they leave the susceptible class direct to the removed class due to sensitization. However the word is always used in the sense of likelihood of an individual being infected.Therefore if they claim sensitization reduces susceptibility then it means individuals can still be infected but at with a reduced likelihood and should therefore not be taken directly to the removed class since this suggests they can never be infected at all.
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: I suggest you make reference to the actual name of the virus SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID 19 at least once in the 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: ESTIMATING THE IMPACT OF LOCK-DOWN, QUARANTINE AND SENSITIZATION IN A COVID-19 OUTBREAK: LESSONS FROM THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK IN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: In the revised manuscript, the authors have added a paragraph comparing their work to other public health science related content, which I believe is a good addition.
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: ESTIMATING THE IMPACT OF LOCK-DOWN, QUARANTINE AND SENSITIZATION IN A COVID-19 OUTBREAK: LESSONS FROM THE COVID-19 OUTBREAK IN CHINA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: .
Experimental design: .
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: I believe the manuscript is ok though the authors have not addressed my concern on susceptibility (see line 61).


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: COCOA COLONIC PHENOLIC METABOLITES ARE RELATED TO HDL-CHOLESTEROL RAISING EFFECTS AND METHYLXANTHINE METABOLITES AND INSOLUBLE DIETARY FIBRE TO ANTI-INFLAMMATORY AND HYPOGLYCEMIC EFFECTS IN HUMANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This is an interesting and well written paper. They relation the bioavailability of cocoa polyphenols and they CV properties.
Experimental design: The experimental design of the paper is not clear.
The informmation given in the title doesn't correspond with the aim of the paper.
Authors should characterize better the fibre content of cocoa, because the decrease of glucose levels and reduce the inflammation are associated to fibre group. So, in 3.2 section they should include an study characterizing the fibre content.
Validity of the findings: The results obtained should be integrated in a better way. To start, I strongly reccomend to incorporate a figure, or table describing the intervention studies, population, dose, main metabolites, health effects...

Indeed, authors should compare the difference in the polyphenol metabolism between single and chronic intake, it should be interesting including a venn diagram to analyze the common and different metabolites...

If epicatechin induce a decrease in LDL cholesterol, why the authors doesn't have similar results, as they say, the cocoa supplementation increases the HDL cholesterol, but... They also should analyze the functionality of HDL to appreciate the real effect of cocoa.

I considered very interesting if the author's could analyze the antioxidant capacity of the patient's serum
Additional comments: 1. FAO reference is missing in the bibliography.
2. In Results& discussion authors loose the
3. I miss a list of abbreviation. There are too many abbreviation very similar which difficult the follow of the paper.
4. L. 223 respectively
5. L 119 trolox equivalent (TE); again L 220 Trolox equivalent (TE)
6. The affirmation between the relationship between the AOX in vitro capacity and in vivo capacity today is very controversial...
7. L 279 mg per how many quantity of starting material?the dose tested in the human experiment?
8. Table 3--> why the authors present the results in blood and urine together? And also, why they only choose one main compound of each family?
9. l 395, 396 397... revise glucuronide word.
10. L 418 reference?
11. L 442 where is the table supporting this??
12. How many hours separate the last cocoa intake to blood collection?
13. table 1: legend of EC, CA, PB1...
13. Supporting informmation: is not described in the text; also, Table 1 and table 2 (excel files) are written in spanish language.
Also; table cocoa bioavailability and pharmacokinetic the colors are not described which study correspond.


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: COCOA COLONIC PHENOLIC METABOLITES ARE RELATED TO HDL-CHOLESTEROL RAISING EFFECTS AND METHYLXANTHINE METABOLITES AND INSOLUBLE DIETARY FIBRE TO ANTI-INFLAMMATORY AND HYPOGLYCEMIC EFFECTS IN HUMANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This article on “exploring remaining secrets behind the bioavailability of cocoa bioactive compounds and cardiovascular health effects in humans” is an interesting article that combines several complementary study designs to explore these remaining secrets. The article is well written but could benefit from a figure presenting the different study designs included in this study. Also an overview figure presenting the integrated results from all different studies would add extra value to the article. There is a lot of interesting results presented in this article but is a bit scattered throughout the article; as such a summary figure could be beneficial for the reader.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: It would be good to elaborate a bit more on the strengths and limitations section just before the conclusion. The multi-tiered approach including complementary study designs can be included as a strength for instance.
Additional comments: Minor comments:

Abstract

Results: “Whereas, 7-methylxanthine (the main cocoa methylxanthine metabolite) and theobromine may be responsible for the decrease of IL-1β and hypoglicemic effects observed after the intervention with DFC, in addition to its content in insoluble dietary fibre.”, this sentence seems not final, part seems missing?

Conclusion:
•	hypoglicemic effects: spelling correction “hypoglycaemic effects”
•	“… and it likely that insoluble dietary fibre may have also played a role.” The “is” seems missing between it and likely.

Page 14:
“Therefore, the product which showed the highest amount of methylxanthines of all the cocoa products and rich in polyphenols (MPC) was selected to compare with the conventional product (CC).”; suggestion to add “and which was” in front of “rich in polyphenols”.

Page 11:
“lowers the content of polyphenols approximately 62.6%”; suggestion to add “with” in front of approximately.

Page 14:
“…metabolites were characterized after consuming realistic doses cocoa of products with”; suggestion for rephrasing: “…metabolites were characterized after consuming realistic doses of cocoa via products with”

Page 14:
“…between 1 to 4 hours and maintaining similar levels throughout 8 h”; suggestion for rephrasing: “…between 1 to 4 hours after ingestion and maintaining similar levels throughout 8 h”

Page 16:
“…showed the maximum concentration in plasma from 1 to 2 h and kinetics compatible with their absorption at small intestine.”; suggestion for rephrasing: “…showed the maximum concentration in plasma from 1 to 2 h after ingestion and kinetics compatible with their absorption at the small intestine.”

Page 16:
Conversion problem of character Ɣ on line 326: “hydroxyphenyl-฀-valerolatones”

Throughout text you sometimes write “Attending to these results”, I believe you mean “According to these results”?

Page 18:
“The main pathway by which epicatechin and its derivatives exert this effect is through increased sensitivity to insulin in hepatic or adipose cells, in which epicatechin acts inhibiting the action of different signalling proteins such as …”; suggestion for rephrasing: “The main pathway by which epicatechin and its derivatives exert this effect is through increased sensitivity to insulin in hepatic or adipose cells, in which epicatechin inhibits the action of different signalling proteins such as …”

Page 20:
“Attending to the results on phenolic metabolites, it may be concluded the main metabolites observed …” this sentence is far too long and hard to read, maybe you can split it in 2 sentences to improve clarity and readability? I would also suggest to replace the “Attending to” by “According to”.

Page 22:

The following sentence is unclear: “However, we carried out the current work knowing that a dose-dependent response occurs with both polyphenols and methylxanthines, when cocoa products were consumed at realistic doses, and no matter the quantity of these compounds, the metabolites obtained are the same.”; Not sure what you mean with “and no matter the quantity of these compounds, the metabolites obtained are the same” for instance?


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: COCOA COLONIC PHENOLIC METABOLITES ARE RELATED TO HDL-CHOLESTEROL RAISING EFFECTS AND METHYLXANTHINE METABOLITES AND INSOLUBLE DIETARY FIBRE TO ANTI-INFLAMMATORY AND HYPOGLYCEMIC EFFECTS IN HUMANS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has been clearly written with professional English and sufficient bibliographic references. Tables, figures and raw data have been shared.
Regarding the list of references, write them in order that they appear in the main text and not in numbers (guide for authors).
Experimental design: Although the experimenal design has been well defined, with suffient detail and authors have performed rigorous clinical investigation, authors are trying to use previous published works and data related to chronic cocoa studies what is a great limitation to compare the bioavailability and chronic studies because thay were carried out separately and used different cocoa products.
Validity of the findings: The bioavailability study provides novel results. However, the objective of the work is not clear when authors use different cocoa products, that have been used in the bioavailability study, to evaluate the chronic effects on cardiovascular health. Moreover conclusions related to health effects asociated to bioactive compounds of cocoa can not be linked to original research presented in this work because bioavailability and chronic studies are not comparable.
Additional comments: Authors should focus on bioailability study of cocoa compounds (phenolic compounds and methylxanthines) that provide novelty results and should consider to provide new finding related to the chronic heath effects of these compounds in a better designed clinical trial.


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: ROLE OF REACTIVE OXYGEN SPECIES AND ISOFLAVONOIDS IN SOYBEAN RESISTANCE TO THE ATTACK OF THE SOUTHERN GREEN STINK BUG
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The information contained in this section is quite good and I adore the subject given that you can see that they have been working on the subject.
Experimental design: I am left in doubt because two batches of seeds are referred to one to determine the response to oxidative stress in which 128 seeds are used and an adult is mentioned. Is this was introduced.? Is it enough for analysis?

reading line 125, I am left in doubt when you write when
Validity of the findings: Very good, according to the importance of soy in that country and in all where it is considered an important agricultural activity.

It should be borne in mind that these analyze are specific for specific sites, since the genotype plus the environment give the characteristic of both plaice and insects.
Additional comments: Very good information and findings, but it is specific to specific sites.
Maybe other varieties show gold behavior pattern


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: ROLE OF REACTIVE OXYGEN SPECIES AND ISOFLAVONOIDS IN SOYBEAN RESISTANCE TO THE ATTACK OF THE SOUTHERN GREEN STINK BUG
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The language and narrative are well done.,

it has been used relevant literature review explaining the issue and research done. Regarding the background, it will be important to refer to the context geographically because the production system and crop are context-dependent.

The structure follows the PeerJ standards, discipline norms and portrays clarity

The figures are suitable for the report; however, they require to show the source i.e. to show where the data has been created or taken from. Fig1 and Fig5 require the source.

Raw data are suitable. Nevertheless, it requires to write the sources in each figure in the supplemental file raw data

Language is clear and properly used
Experimental design: The manuscript is original within the scope of the journal

The research question is not explicitly stated. the knowledge gap has been identified

The investigation follows the technical and ethical standards.

The method can be replicated and it has been well defined in the narrative
Validity of the findings: The benefit of the literature is clearly stated. Replication is encouraged to be taken.

The data is robust, statistically well defined, and controlled.

There is not speculation stated in the manuscript

The inferred conclusion has not relation to a research question due to the lack of research question in the manuscript
Additional comments: It would be interesting to refer to the implications of the research for the Latin American context. Including stating what type of producers can access this technology once it is available.


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: ROLE OF REACTIVE OXYGEN SPECIES AND ISOFLAVONOIDS IN SOYBEAN RESISTANCE TO THE ATTACK OF THE SOUTHERN GREEN STINK BUG
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: The methodology used for analyses performing is reasonably adequate, but I would to issue some questions and address some suggestions to the authors:
Firstly, I would like to know the reason of choosing Davis as the susceptible control. This is an old material and much less productive than the current cultivars used by farmers, which turn the comparison rather unrealistic to reach the manuscript objective of indicating IAC-100, as a source of resistance. The comparison of a resistant with a contemporaneous cultivar would be more realistic and useful for soybean breeders.
One other question is concernning to soybean stage. Why R6 (fully grown seed) was used for performing the analysis?
On the isoflavone detection, I have further comments. Soybean inmmature grains/seeds, in general, present three isoflavones (daidzin, genistin and glycitein) in two conjugates form (glucosyl and malonyl), and three aglycones (daidzein, genistein, and glycitein).
‘IAC 100’ has been the object of some studies about secondary metabolite and its chemical profile concerning flavonoids is relatively well known. There is a paper published by Graça et al, em  2016, (Phytochemistry 131: 84-91), where it is possible to see the isoflavone derivatives detected in IAC 100 extracts. In this paper, the authors detected and quantified the possible isoflavones forms (glycosides and aglycones) in IAC 100 seed extracts detectabled by HPLC analyses (as here).
When checking chromatograms provided in this manuscript, it is possible to see that not all compound (peaks) were identified. Thus, my suggestion for further studies is to detect the other isoflavone conjugates, as they inform the balance of such compounds.  All isoflavone derivative standards are available in the market.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript relates a series of analysis to identify and quantify physical and biochemical defense mechanisms soybean plants to the Nezara viridula attack. The authors compared the response of cultivars, IAC-100 (insect resistant) with Davis (insect susceptible). In general, the manuscript is well written, and the results are interesting and represent a good contribution to clarify the mechanisms of soybean resistance to one important soybean insect-pest. The methodology used for analyses performing is reasonably adequate, results are interesting, and the discussion is appropriate.
Additional comments: In general, the manuscript is well written, and the results are interesting, representing a good contribution to clarify the mechanisms of soybean resistance to one important soybean insect-pest. The methodology used for analyses performing is reasonably adequate, results are interesting, and the discussion is appropriate.
In Introduction, line 44, please, add Euschistus heros, besides of Nezara viridula and Piezodorus guildini, as one of the predominant specie of stink bug in South America. Brazil is a big soybean producer country, and the more abundant and damaging stink bug in its soybean cropping area is the brown stink bug, E. heros. The other two species are main pests in farms located in the Brazilian States closer to Argentina and Uruguay.
After few clarifications, the manuscript is adequate to be accepted to PeerJ publication.


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

Input:
Title: COMPARABLE BEHAVIOUR OF RING AND LITTLE FINGERS DUE TO AN ARTIFICIAL REDUCTION IN THUMB CONTRIBUTION TO HOLD OBJECTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well written and the ideas are clearly expressed and developed. The experimental design introduces a mechanism that is able to minimize the contribution of the thumb tangential force in the holding task and induces a chain effect of force adjustment in other fingers. However, the conclusion was mainly driven by the observation of statistically equal normal forces exerted by ring and little fingers when the tangential force of the thumb cannot be translated from the force sensor to the object due to the frictionless interface. It will strengthen the argument if the authors discuss some factors that could contribute to equal finger force production.
Experimental design: The experiment measures individual finger force distribution in a five-digit grip to hold task under two different conditions. A minor concern is that the safety margin of the thumb in the Free condition violates the definition and cannot be computed since there is no margin of no-slip for a frictionless surface.
Validity of the findings: Compared to the previous studies, this present paper compares the finger force distribution only among two essentially different objects, i.e. different tasks. Without a comparable mechanical requirement of individual finger force, it is difficult to determine whether a finger is more mechanically advantageous than another finger. In order to falsify the MAH, the authors might want to compare tasks that only scale up or down the mechanical requirements.
Additional comments: In general, this manuscript presents clearly the methods and results with a discussion of a prehension behavior limited to the MAH and safety margin. My suggestion is to include discussion of some other factors, such as finger biomechanical constraints or neural interdependency.


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: COMPARABLE BEHAVIOUR OF RING AND LITTLE FINGERS DUE TO AN ARTIFICIAL REDUCTION IN THUMB CONTRIBUTION TO HOLD OBJECTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In general,  the experiments are presented clearly and the results are easy to follow. Sufficient relevant background was provided,  and cited appropriately. Some of the results require clearer presentation (in particular figure 2), and some of the figures could be removed. The raw data were provided using figshare and appear to be complete, although an explanation of the columns would be useful. The paper is appropriately structured.
Experimental design: The research is original, although the research question is not well motivated - novelty is not a strong motivation for performing a study. The technical details are presented and it is clear that the work was performed to a high technical standard. Appropriate ethical approval was received. The methods were described with sufficient detail to understand how the experiment was performed. The description of the "two one sided t-tests" needs to be expanded.
Validity of the findings: The results of the study are clearly and thoroughly presented, and all relevant data has been presented.  The discussion is well tied to the data, apart from the claims that the study "falsifies" the mechanical advantage hypothesis. In this study, the authors compared the normal and tangential forces applied in two conditions when grasping a handle with 5 fingers, with the thumb in the middle vertically 1) with no additional constraints 2) when the tangential (vertical) force is limited. They describe the changes in the strategy of choosing the distribution of forces caused by the change in requirements.  In particular, they observe that given the increased moment required to be generated by the "virtual finger" (fingers 2 to 5), the little finger and ring finger play similar roles. They note that their results are in contrast to the mechanical advantage hypothesis, which suggests that the little finger should apply a greater force (due to its longer moment arm). However, the conclusions regarding "falsifying" the mechanical advantage hypothesis do not seem to be sufficiently supported by the data, nor is any alternative hypothesis presented.
Additional comments: Page 6,  line 38: remove "in"
Line 39: "the index finger"

It would be useful in the abstract to say why the mechanical advantage hypothesis exists (i.e. what is the benefit)

Page 7, Line 72: "the hand"

Line 74: "it is known . ..  " - it would be helpful to explain why the forces change due to these perturbations
Line 82: you should explicitly state that they have longer moment arms if the fingers are spread out evenly on the handle

Page 8, line 114: "for the moment caused due to the vertical unsteadiness of the thumb slider". Isn't it rather a change in moment caused by the reduced normal force when performing a secondary task?
Line 116: "By this way" -> "In this way"

Line 117: "we artificially reduced the contribution of thumb in holding the handle". As this is a critical part of your paper, please elaborate. Reduced normal force?  Tangential force? Why / how does this change the moment produced by the thumb?

Line 123: At this point, a diagram of the different possibilities we could expect as a result of the change in thumb force would be helpful

Line 125: virtual finger should be defined

Page 9, line 155:  If the friction of the mechanism is very low, it is not clear to me how they could hold the handle with the thumb and apply a vertical force without the handle sliding

Page 13, line 278: If you use the two one-sided t-test approach, you should specify what are the bounds you are using

Line 294: provide SD for the angle values. Please provide t / p values for the statistics presented, including the equivalence tests.

Line 304: "normal force produced by the index finger was found to be non-different". Do you mean that the variance of the normal force was low throughout the trial? How did you quantify this? I don't understand how this relates to "overlapping"

Line 324: You present "The interaction condition x finger was significant", but then only support this by differences found in both conditions. The interaction needs to be explained by different differences in the two conditions

Line 365: LDA analysis - I'm not sure what the purpose of the LDA analysis is. It seems obvious that different strategies are used in the two conditions, and I am not sure what the LDA analysis adds to this.

Page 15, line 387: "The thumb only has to support the slider platform whose weight is around 1N". The main difference between conditions is not that it "only" has to support the slider but rather than it cannot apply the "desired" vertical force (as was used in the fixed task)

Page 16, line 413: As you noted in the introduction, "the moment arm of the finger had a monotonic non-linear relationship with the force produced by that finger". This seems to be able to provide more evidence for the MAH, whereas in your study there were only two levels considered, and so it is harder to determine whether your findings negate the MAH. You should also explicitly note that the change in forces here are not due to an external moment but rather  a (forced) change in finger forces

Page 18, line 502 "falsified the mechanical advantage hypothesis", this seems overly strong. "Does not support" would be more appropriate

Figure 2: In (a), where is the fixed index force? In some of the panels in (b), it is not possible to distinguish between the SDs. Also, why does the dashed line stop / start midway?

Figure 2 + 3 do not seem to present the same data. It seems like Figure 3 should be the average of Figure 2, but this does not seem to be the case

Figure 2-4 are essentially presenting the same data, less figures would improve the clarity of the paper


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: COMPARABLE BEHAVIOUR OF RING AND LITTLE FINGERS DUE TO AN ARTIFICIAL REDUCTION IN THUMB CONTRIBUTION TO HOLD OBJECTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This revision addressed all 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: COMPARABLE BEHAVIOUR OF RING AND LITTLE FINGERS DUE TO AN ARTIFICIAL REDUCTION IN THUMB CONTRIBUTION TO HOLD OBJECTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The authors have corrected most of my concerns with the paper. Some minor comments:

- Abstract: "falsify" - similar to the change you made in the manuscript, I would also remove / change the word "falsify" in the abstract to a something like "does not support"

- Figure 6 is useful for understanding the possible changes - in the text, please note which option (A,B or C) matches your prediction, and which matches the outcome observed in the experiment


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: ONE BECOMES TWO: SECOND SPECIES OF THE EUWALLACEA FORNICATUS (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE: SCOLYTINAE) SPECIES COMPLEX IS ESTABLISHED ON TWO HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is well-written and the approach is logical, It provides a thorough and well-written account of an overlooked discovery and subsequent confirmation of two species, rather than one as previously thought, of the Euwallacea fornicatus complex in Hawaii. The invasion of this species complex to several regions and its taxonomic dynamism makes the ms topical and relevant both in its report of the range expansion of one of the invasive species, and in its development of a method to easily differentiate taxa without sequencing. I enjoyed reading it very much and it adds important additional data and support to this fascinating system.
Experimental design: While not comprising an 'experiment' in the traditional sense, the approach is well-considered and thorough and the aims are clear. I am unfamiliar with the high-resolution melt approach, but it appears to provide a fast, accurate and repeatable method for differentiating species. All other aspects - trapping, collection, sequencing of beetles, isolation and sequencing of fungi - are well described and conducted.
Validity of the findings: The second species was independently collected, and was verified through additional collections, and sequencing, here.  The HRM approach was validated using traditional sequencing and I am satisfied that both it, and the results reported here are correctly interpreted - I am in no doubt of their veracity.
Additional comments: I have only a few minor corrections to the ms here:
L3: delete “both” as it sounds like you only sampled two macadamia orchards
L25,L27: it doesn’t bother me because I am familiar with the acronyms, but it is unusual to present them without explaining what they stand for, particularly out of context as here. This is up to the editor, as I actually think it is simpler not to have to write in full “tea shot hole borer” and “polyphagous shot hole borer” – but it does contravene normal first-use of acronyms.
L32: delete “just”
L33: newly-confirmed
L35-36: delete “It is of particular note that” – being in the abstract makes it already noteworthy.
L38: delete “anywhere”
L42: delete “have”, “much recent” and “both” from the first sentence. It otherwise reads a little too America-centric since they are also invasive elsewhere and this has attracted recent attention too.
L57: why just Hawaii here? Maybe change to “these three states” or something as it seems odd to leave California and Florida out of it now.
L58: delete “of”
L86-87: capitalise Shot Hole Borer for PSHB and KSHB as for TSHB (or de-capitalise for TSHB)
L95: TSHB is not perbrevis in Gomez et al as cited here.
L117: delete “also”
L118: eastern
L121 and others: mL rather than ml
L192,193,194: is the species name euwallceae rather than euwallcea?
L221: delete “had”
L225: delete “actually”
L227: or indeed how long either species has been present. Is it not possible that the original records prior to 1910 could be PSHB?
L240: delete “subsequently” and “additional”
L245: is this better expressed by replacing “With the exception of” by “Along with”?
L250: replace “,as yet, never” with “not”
L261: delete “currently”
L305,306: move “TSHB and PSHB” from end of sentence to after “species”

Thank you for the opportunity to review the ms.


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: ONE BECOMES TWO: SECOND SPECIES OF THE EUWALLACEA FORNICATUS (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE: SCOLYTINAE) SPECIES COMPLEX IS ESTABLISHED ON TWO HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: A nicely written paper.
Experimental design: no comment. The diagnostic tool developed will help identify these species.
Validity of the findings: no comment.
Additional comments: 1. Line 228-229. It is very unfortunate that no attempt was made to locate additional specimens of these species in either the Bishop Museum or in the UH Manoa collection (where one author on this manuscript is based). I understand that the Bishop may not be accessible at this point due to covid, but the UH collection should be easy for at least one author to check. The big Island and Oahu were surveyed as part of the Forest Service’s EDRR program back in 2009 (Rabaglia et al. 2019: https://academic.oup.com/ae/article/65/1/29/5376569; no need to cite this unless you find it necessary). The UH collection contains authoritatively identified specimens of both species from the 2009 which will help elucidate how widespread E. fornicatus was distributed in the Big Island around the time the Maddox specimen was sequenced. I identified these specimens in January 2020.

2. Line 230. These species are actually relatively easy to separate, especially when they are next to each other in a mixed series. See both Gomez et al. 2018 and Smith et al. 2019’s tables and note that the two species do not overlap in either size or length/width ratio. This is a fact and not a claim as it has been tested and these differences are statistically significant (see Gomez et al.). Rewrite.

3. The authors improperly refer to Euwallacea fornicatus with usage of s.s. and s.l. throughout the manuscript. The four species in the complex are monophyletic lineages and associated with species names. They should be referred to as these names or 'species complex' instead.  It is acceptable in the intro but not in the abstract, lines 27, 64, 80, 98-99, 102, 216, Figure 1, or Table 1.

4. Line 305: The word ‘cryptic’ is not really applicable to these two species as they can easily be separated with a micrometer.

5. Line 51. Correctly: Réunion.


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: ONE BECOMES TWO: SECOND SPECIES OF THE EUWALLACEA FORNICATUS (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE: SCOLYTINAE) SPECIES COMPLEX IS ESTABLISHED ON TWO HAWAIIAN ISLANDS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Minor rewrite necessary.
An additional figure is suggested.
Experimental design: Measuring additional specimens is suggested.
An additional analysis is suggested.
Validity of the findings: The findings are valid although the discussion does not consider the entirety of recently published studies and data.
Additional comments: Line 99 – “(according to Smith et al., 2019)” This is an odd phrase for a citation.  Do the authors doubt the conclusions of this publication? If so more explanation is needed.  If not, delete “according to”.

Line 216 – no need to include s.s. after E. fornicatus at this point in the paper. The use sensu stricto is reserved for when species boundaries are obscure. Gomez et al. 2018 and Smith et al. 2019 delimit the species (I read both papers so to be certain).

Line 218 – “ both are found..” simplify to occur.

Lines 227 -229 – Why not check the Bishop and the UH collections for specimens of PSHB ? One author is located in Oahu – I don’t think it is unreasonable (even with COVID -19 precautions) to request a loan of specimens from Bishop and the UH collections.

Lines 229- 232 – This sentence is awkwardly written and its meaning is unclear.  1. “Recent systematic studies (Gomez et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2019) have claimed that TSHB and PSHB…” What do the authors mean by “claimed”?  This implies that the results/conclusions of the above two studies are suspect. If so this point would need some explanation. (Note: Upon reading these papers, I found the authors’ methodologies sound and conclusions reasonable. Their results clearly shows that the body sizes of these two species are distinct.) The authors do not use the morphometric analysis in this paper so the assertion that the conclusions of Gomez et al., 2018 and Smith et al., 2019 is baseless.  2. “… so these collections may have inadvertently captured a historical record of this invasion.”  “Inadvertently” suggests that these entomology collections were made without purpose or haphazardly which is dismissive of their importance. I suggest this wording “…so these collections may hold a historical record of this invasion.”

Concerning my comments pertaining to Lines 227-232, I believe conducting morphometric analysis on suspect specimens of PSHB in the Bishop and UH collections would be greatly improved this paper it is an opportunity to discover the earliest record of this species in Hawai’i.

Lines 230 -242– I understand the authors point that the exact PSHB haplotype (identical to KX818247) has not been found in the native range. However, sequences similar to it may give some evidence to its origin. The authors suggest that KX818247 is close to H27-29 but there are more E. fornicatus sequences reported in Smith et al. 2019. Conducting a phylogenetic analysis of all available E. fornicatus sequences would better illustrate the relationship of KX818247 to the haplotypes discover in the native range of the species.

Review the literature cited – there are several typographical errors throughout.


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: ADAPTIVE METROPOLIS-COUPLED MCMC FOR BEAST 2
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is clearly written, cites relevant literature, provides sufficient background, and represents an appropriate unit of publication.

Some typos:

lines 100-101: "The acceptance probability of accepting this new state..." -->  "The probability of accepting this new state..."

line 216: "We ran to different datasets..." -->  "We ran two different datasets..."

line 256: "...which is smaller the better to distributions match.: --> "...which is smaller the better two distributions match."
Experimental design: The experimental design of this study was commendable, and clearly demonstrates that their approach to adapting the chain temperature schedule works well. There were, however, a few sections that need clarification:

a. Line 114 says "As stated above, we consider the temperatures of n different chains to be geometrically distributed..." and lines 152-153 say "The temperatures of the different chains are therefore geometrically distributed, which has been shown to be a good spacing of temperatures between individual chains...." I don't see how the temperatures can be geometrically distributed, as the geometric distribution is a discrete distribution, which would require temperatures to be non-negative integers, and, in any case, the chain temperatures are computed deterministically given delta t and are not random variables. I think the authors meant to say that the temperatures (or inverse temperatures) form a geometric progression, but even that interpretation is confusing, as their formula seems to generate an arithmetic, not a geometric, progression (i.e. there is a constant *difference* between adjacent inverse temperatures, not a common *ratio*. So, the authors need to clarify what they mean here.

b. Lines 142-148 suggest that the local and global acceptance probabilities are statistics computed from the last 100 proposed exchanges or all exchanges, respectively. That part made sense. Earlier, however, the text between lines 161-120 is a bit confusing. The statement (starting with line 117) "When updating the temperature based on the global acceptance probability, we compute p_{current} based on all proposed exchanges of states from the start of a run to the current state" seems to conflict with the statement (starting on line 119) "At each proposed  exchange of states between states, we denote the probability of an exchange being accepted as p_{current}." So p_{current} is, in the first statement, based on the entire run up to that point, and, in the second statement, based only on the current iteration. How does p_{current} relate to R_{ij} (equation at the end of the paragraph lacking line numbers between line 106 and line 107)? Please clarify the relationship between p_{current}, p_{local}, and R_{ij}.

c. Do exchanges only take place between chains that have temperatures that are neighbors in the temperature progression? Or can the cold chain swap with the hottest chain when more than 2 chains are being used? If the latter, it would seem more difficult (rejection rate of proposed exchanges greater) for jumps between chains at the extremes of temperature compared to swaps between chains with adjacent temperatures. Which acceptance probability is being compared to the target acceptance probability: the average acceptance rate across all possible exchanges? Lines 74-76 seem to say that the acceptance rate between any pair of chains is identical and can be made equal to the target acceptance probability: "By default, the implementation adapts the temperature difference between heated chains to achieve an acceptance probability of any two chains being exchanged of 0.234." I don't see how the "any two chains" part of this can be correct. Please clarify whether your method instead tries to center the average acceptance rate over the target.
Validity of the findings: I thought that the analyses performed to demonstrate the effectiveness of adaptive parallel tempering were very appropriate and convincing. (Minor issue: Figure 1B is never referenced in the text as far as I can tell.) The analysis of data set DS1 (a data set that exhibits a strongly multimodal posterior) and the plots in Figure 4 are particularly compelling. I suggest that the authors also cite the following paper along with Lakner et al. 2008 and Hohna and Drummond 2011 when discussing the DS1 results. The Whidden and Matsen paper does a nice job of showing the bimodality of DS1's tree space visually, and also points out that MCMCMC is necessary for this data set to achieve adequate mixing.

C Whidden, FA Matsen IV 2015 Quantifying MCMC exploration of phylogenetic tree space. Systematic biology 64 (3), 472-491.
Additional comments: I think this is a valuable contribution to the Bayesian phylogenetics literature. The authors did not invent adaptive parallel tempering, but they demonstrate that it works well for phylogenetic applications. They clearly describe their method so that it would be easy to implement in other software, and provide an open source software solution in the form of a plugin for the widely used Bayesian phylogenetics software package BEAST2.


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: ADAPTIVE METROPOLIS-COUPLED MCMC FOR BEAST 2
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript "Adaptive Parallel Tempering for BEAST 2" describes a method of
incorporating MC^3 in BEAST to hit target acceptance rates. Overall, this will be very useful and the authors show advantages of their implementation. The text should be improved both for clarity and language editing. Additionally, the current manuscript only provides some very basic testing and does not really explore different possible implementation (suggested below). For this manuscript to have more value than a description of a software implementation, namely a discussion and evaluation of method, it needs more comparisons to alternative method choices.

The manuscript never mentions MCMCMC or MC^3, although the name of the package is called "CoupledMCMC" and not "ParallelTempering". In order to reach the target
audience (phylogenetics users and methods developers), the authors should instead use the term Metropolis-Coupled MCMC, MCMCMC, or MC^3 in the manuscript, and change the working title to "Adaptive MC^3". This would also avoid confusion about differences to the MC^3 method implemented in MrBayes.

The manuscript lacks citations to support claims made throughout the manuscript. Specific examples are:
- the introduction needs examples and citations (line 36-43, line 52-56)
- the implementation follows other software , e.g., MrBayes and ExaBayes, and should be cited accordingly (e.g., swapping of temperatures only is common practice, lines 155-168)
- why is parallelising these models hard? Examples? Citations? (line 292-296)

Several sections/paragraphs/sentences were not clear or difficult to understand (only those very familiar with the subject may be able to follow). Specific examples are:
- lines 116 - 122 (especially the p_current, and p_target, which are not properly defined)
- lines 167-169 (what are loggers?).
- what are the ESS compute for in Figure 3?

Overall, the manuscript needs more polishing regarding the language and grammar. Specific example are:
- "and the tune the" (line 115)
- "to"-> two (line 216)
- iterations (line 273)
- add "iterations" after 10^7 (line 274)

More comments:
- what do the authors mean by two chains are "randomly" exchanged (line 49)?
- does the implementation work only on a single hardware? Please clarify and be more specific (line 71/72).
- please use clade probabilities instead of clade credibilities.
- In equation (2), I found it easier to understand if the \sum exchanges is replaced by #exchanges.
Experimental design: The performed tests are bit short and should be more comprehensive. Specifically, the authors should:

1) test another temperature scheme, for example, a discretized beta distribution. When using the quantiles of the beta distribution, as commonly done for "stepping stone sampling", you could adapt one or two parameters of this distribution similar to the geometric distribution.

2) Add more empirical datasets especially showing a Figure like Figure 4 (clade probabilities). Is this improvement seen also for "easier" datasets because the authors show only the continuous parameters but not the trees for their other example?

3) The authors stick to only 4 chains within an analyses. For standard HPC settings, we have 8-80 CPUs per node. Could the authors also test the impact of adding more heated chains, e.g., using 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64?

4) The authors only explore one type of chain swapping; randomly picking two chains. Often, it is more efficient if neighboring chains are swapped. Could the authors add a comparison between the random swap and neighbor swap, and a combination of both.

5) Could the authors explore different update methods and justify their choice? For standard MCMC methods, the proposal are commonly auto-tuned. Thus, there is a considerable literature on how the auto-tuning can be done.
Validity of the findings: Regarding Figure 4, how sure can we be that the reference run (x-axis) actually sampled the correct posterior probabilities? I suggest to follow the standard practice and compute some "golden runs" (see Höhna and Drummond 2012, or Whidden and Matsen 2017; Quantifying MCMC Exploration of Phylogenetic Tree Space).

The implementation of MC^3 in BEAST 2 is an interesting subject; however, the
concept is not novel. Consider comparing it to other existing implementations
(e.g., MrBayes, ExaBayes & RevBayes), and describe what the improvements are.
Additional comments: There was a recent paper by Brown and Thompson (https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/67/4/729/4866058) that discusses a problematic scenario for MCMCMC. Could the authors add at least one paragraph discussing how their method would behave in the given problem case/

Please provide some guidelines for users. Should users always run an MCMCMC analysis with XXX chains or first try a standard MCMC run and then use MCMCMC if the MCMC failed?

Was there smoothing performed for the posterior mean in Figure 1? If so, then please state.

The paper gives the impression that adding more chains comes for free (lines 326-331) as it states that standard MCMC uses N times the number of iterations. However, please state fair and clearly that all approaches used here take the same overall number of computing operations. If it is suggested that multi-core computers have unused CPUs, then several independent MCMCs could be ran as well and combined at the end.


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: ADAPTIVE METROPOLIS-COUPLED MCMC FOR BEAST 2
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no serious issue. See Comments to Authors
Experimental design: no concerns
Validity of the findings: no concerns
Additional comments: This is a nice contribution that I think should be accepted for publication.  I have only 1 suggestion that could arguably be called "major."

major:
I think the authors should discuss how their method differs from the tuneHeat option in mcmcmc in RevBayes.

minor:

1. I think  parallelisable should be spelled  parallelizable.

2. line36-43. I agree that a lot of work is focussed on better tree priors, and that some aspcets of those are hard to parallelize. But I find it a bit hard to believe that these calculations are the rate-limiting step in many (any?) real analyses given the computational burden of the pruning algorithm. Is that what the authors are saying? Are they talking about things like the priors on gene trees in the Multi-lineage structured coalescent? This is a bit vague. More precision or references would help.

3. Use either "BEAST2" or "BEAST 2" consisitently.

4. I certainly wouldn't suggest this as a mandatory change, as there are no strict rules in statistical notation, but... x is very commonly used for the data in expressions of Bayes rule, and there is a general tradition of using greek letters for statisical parameters. Substituting \theta for x would help readablility by following that tradition.

5. line 125. It looks like it approaches 0. It does not "become 0" unless you mean "rounds to 0"

6. line 127. I certainly don't object to targetting the acceptance probability as a practical way to improve efficiency. It seems like the ms should discuss that in an ideal world, we'd optimize ESS or PSRF per unit of CPU time, but those are harder to calculate on-the-fly. So, targetting the acceptance probability is a good solution. It seems implausible to me that we know the correct acceptance probability to target down to the thousandths place, but that is not a big concern.

7. line 140 : "In order to reduce the risk of that, we maximize the difference
between ∆tcurrent and ∆tnew to be 0.001."
does that mean you that eqn (2) should have a min(0.001, \frac{p_current - p_target}{\sum exchanges}) ?
if so, just correct the eqn (my rough interpretation probably needs an absolute value for the min check). If not correct the text.

8. MultiTypeTree is such a vague name, that you should probably point out on line 193 what it is (even though you make the connection to "multi type trees" and the structured coalescent earlier.)

9. I think that Kolmogorov–Smirnov is usually hypenated. (it is not in figure 3 caption, though)


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: DENSITY AND DIVERSITY OF MACROINVERTEBRATES IN COLOMBIAN ANDEAN STREAMS IMPACTED BY MINING, AGRICULTURE AND CATTLE PRODUCTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript, the authors assessed the effects of different land uses (mining, cattle production and agriculture) on aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages in the Colombian Andean region. The text is well written and reading is easy and consistent. I appreciate the manuscript and think the authors have good data in hands that were not well explored in the manuscript. I have some comments below:
Some references throughout the text are, in my opinion, not adequate to the referred citation. For example, in line 59 (Blanchette & Pearson 2012) don’t discuss anything about ecosystem services provided by streams. In other parts of the text, authors use local references to quote general patterns in ecology or general patterns. Also, there are too many references that could be reduced in 30-40%.

In my opinion, the weakness of the manuscript is that a novelty is not presented. What is the novelty comparing with the works cited in lines 94-100? A reduction in diversity and richness is a common and known pattern. So, the authors should go forward and show what their paper has of innovation and new knowledge to science. The authors argue that the effects of mining, agriculture and cattle production in the Andes streams within the same sampling period, but each site was analyzed separately. I suggest the authors use multivariate analyses to relate the macroinvertebrates composition/richness with the environmental parameters (CCA, RDA, Co-inertia, etc.). What parameters vary with different land uses and how it affects aquatic assemblages? It would enhance the quality of the manuscript.
Experimental design: Please see comments at "General comments".
Validity of the findings: Comments below
Additional comments: Specific comments:

L68: I suggest remove Branco 1984.

L68-70: Before going straight to mining, agricultural and cattle production as main threats to aquatic quality, I suggest describe first the main threats and impacts of aquatic ecosystems. I suggest quoting Dudgeon et al 2006 and Reid et al 2019 (Biological Reviews). Remove Sadeguian etal 2000.

L73-74: I suggest removing Zapata & Mejía 2004 and Brévault et al 2007 and add a more recent reference.

L167: Why those substrates were choice? You discuss nothing in the text (results and discussion).

L168: I suggest clarify the number of samples/subsamples: 3 replicates x 3 substrates x 6 sampling events = 54 samples/site? Is this correct?

L169: If I have well understood, authors have just one morphoespecies by genera, except for Tipulidae. I suggest using and analyzing just with genera data, once does not make sense using morphoespecies if no variability exists. Furthermore, using morphoespecies is not much adequate, once a same species can present different stages of development and be mistakenly considered different species.

L177: How water parameters were measured in situ? What equipment have you used? Also, how the aquatic parameters were measured in laboratory?

L235: In table S1 there are not 86 morphoespecies, but 57. Please check this information.

L 236-239: I suggest rewriting this sentence. “Density was significantly higher only in the zone Reference 2…”. Also, put letter (a, b) in above the boxplots showing who is different from whom.

L259: If you analyzing using morphoespecies, why for composition have you used genera?

L262: The taxon names in the figure are too small and it is difficult to read.

L263-264: Please add the statistical value of Anosim.

L269-285: And what about differences in aquatic parameters among the zones? It would be interesting testing and describing those parameters that were different among the zones. How the environmental parameters affect aquatic assemblages? You could go ahead and perform multivariate analyses, such as CCA, RDA, Coinertia, etc, to relate environmental variables and aquatic composition/richness/density.

Discussion: Authors discuss most of the results using possible explications (i.e. “could be related”) of parameters that were in fact measured by them, but not analyzed with biotic data. I think this is the weakest point of the manuscript and could be easily solved.

Table 2 is not called in the text. It could be moved to supplementary.


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: DENSITY AND DIVERSITY OF MACROINVERTEBRATES IN COLOMBIAN ANDEAN STREAMS IMPACTED BY MINING, AGRICULTURE AND CATTLE PRODUCTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, this manuscript represents an original, self-contained study evaluating the effect that different categories of anthropogenic activities purportedly have on communities of Macro-invertebrates in Colombian Andean headwaters streams. While written in completely understandable English, I spotted some confusing passages (as for example those found in line 94 or lines 121-125). As a non-native English speaker, I suggest that the manuscript should be double-checked for language inconsistencies by someone more qualified for the task, although they seemed to me as minor issues. The literature review is sufficiently presented, but with a certain regional bias to Andean South America (suggested literature to be included are for example Carter et al., 2017;  Godoy et al, 2017; Abdo et al., 2013; Buss et al., 2015).
The manuscript structure is in compliance with the journal´s suggested format, as are figures and tables. Original data are presented as tables in the main body or the supplemental material sections of the manuscript, but scripts of analyses are not, which would greatly improve the reproducibility of results found in this study. I suggested authors share them as GitHub link or supplemental R_markdown file.

Suggested references:
Abdo et al. 2013, doi:10.1111/een.12013
Buss et al., 2015, doi: 10.1007/s10661-014-4132-8
Carter et al., 2017- doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-813047-6.00016-4
Godoy et al., 2017 doi:10.1007/s13744-016-0452-4
Experimental design: Regarding the experimental design of this study, the approach to deal with diversity in the analytical section is a very interesting one (a very strong reason to share the analytical scrips designed for the study). On the other hand, I would like to point out two issues that should be noted:
- Hypothesis construction in the manuscript introduction section lists several studies conducted in South America, especially Colombia, describing knowledge accumulated on the impact of broad categories of anthropogenic activities in AMI communities, but fails to clearly depict which changes or processes might be specific to each broad category.  The reader is left with a very general idea of impacts that could be expected to occur in the system studied here, and a gap leading to the presented predictions. For example, is not clear why the authors expect "a maximum impoverishment of AMI diversity in the zone with gold mining" (Line 125). I suggest this could be better explained in the introduction section before any decision about the manuscript is made.

- There is no real spatial or treatment replication in the study. AMI samples are replicated only on a temporal perspective, for the same 100m strip of stream in each treatment. (In fact, they have two "control" reference sites, but they are treated as independent on the experimental design). The sampling of environmental covariates followed the same design but, except for water flow and precipitation, all other variables were not measured concomitant with AMI sampling.
In my opinion, these problems limit the inference of the impact of anthropogenic activities in AMI communities. The whole temporal replication is collapsed for the diversity analysis, allowing for an "overall" diversity comparison between each single treatment unit (mining, cattle, agriculture etc...).
Only when approaching species composition that they really allow for a true temporal evaluation, but as there is a mismatch between AMI and covariates sampling, the evaluation is restricted to an indirect comparison of ordinations (instead of a direct, more powerful approach like canonical analysis - i.e. RDA).
Also, as there are no true replicates of the treatments, the results presented here don´t allow us to discern what are anthropogenic effects and what is variability related to landscape or spatial patterns... for example "Mining" and "Reference site 1"  are both located on the same stream, inside forested areas, less than 300m between them  (Figure 1), and both presented very similar diversity measures (Figure 2.B) and species composition (Figure 3), and also some similarity between sampling points in covariates PCA (Figure 4).  Specifically, these results would benefit from an analysis of autocorrelation in species composition between sampling points, and I suggest the authors include it at least as supplemental material in this manuscript before any decision is made.
(suggested literature: Heino, 2013; Tolonen et al., 2017).

Suggested references:
Heino, 2013, doi: 10.1002/ece3.470
 Tolonen et al., 2017, doi:10.5061/dryad.2s4g5
Validity of the findings: As discussed in the previous review section, while not inconsistent with the original question of the study, the analytical approach employed here has some setbacks related to spatial replication that limits the conclusions found by the authors. I believe that the issues raised in the previous section should be addressed before a complete decision on the validity of findings.
Also, I would like to add as a note that, interestingly, the presence of riparian vegetation is mentioned in the introduction, described in the study area section and widely mentioned in the discussion section as a possible explanation to the patterns found in this study, but it was not directly evaluated in the analyses conducted. Together with spatial variables, riparian vegetation (width?) and maybe also land use classification seems to be, at least, complementary in explaining observed patterns.
Additional comments: On figure 4, the PCA plot shows "LP" for cattle production instead of "CP". The authors should correct this to maintain uniformity between legend and figure, and also across the whole 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: DENSITY AND DIVERSITY OF MACROINVERTEBRATES IN COLOMBIAN ANDEAN STREAMS IMPACTED BY MINING, AGRICULTURE AND CATTLE PRODUCTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I noticed the authors effort in addressing some of my previous comments, but I feel that the manuscript still has language issues and has not been through a thorough revision by a native English speaker, as suggested.
In some passages, the wording is more confusing than in the previous version (as for example in lines 92-93 or 100-102,  also In the discussion).
Experimental design: The authors sufficiently addressed the majority of my previous comments, except for the spatial autocorrelation issue which, as they recognize, maybe a major weakness of this study. Nonetheless, results indirectly provide evidence against spatial dependence muddling the comprehension of results obtained.
Validity of the findings: I can perceive the authors' efforts in addressing my previous comments.
One additional remark that I make relates to the fact that the predictions made on the introduction were not confirmed, while a general hypothesis of impact due to anthropogenic activities was. These predictions can be broken down into two aspects: 1) Increase in dominance due to the increase in the abundance of tolerant species, reflecting in the overall density 2) Mining as the worst possible scenario, mainly because of channel diversion and removal of organic matter and sediments.
The authors succeed in discussing the second item, but I failed to notice where they directly approach the first one, discussing why the found an opposite result than expected.
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: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE AUTOMATIC THOUGHTS QUESTIONNAIRE-8 IN TWO SPANISH NONCLINICAL SAMPLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The paper is well-written.
Literature review is sufficient.
Experimental design: A psychometric study with two samples of Spainiard people.
Focusing on criterion validity and internal consistency and construction validity. In addition, the authors also tested measurement invariance across samples and genders.
Validity of the findings: I have the below comments for the authors.
1. Sample representativeness. Two samples from undergraduate students and online general population are not representative of Spaniard people. Please consider the potential impact of sample selection on the psychometric property of ATQ-8. Without a representative sample, I think the authors can not make conclusions in their way.
2. The questionnaire contained over 80 items, it seems too long for participants. Validity of answers in the questionnaire must be considered.
3. For online survey, I do not think the authors can obtained written informed consent.
4. The basic demographic characteristics of the study samples must be reported.
5. Measurement invariance across age and education level is also important.
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: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE AUTOMATIC THOUGHTS QUESTIONNAIRE-8 IN TWO SPANISH NONCLINICAL SAMPLES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: In terms of study design, should researchers consider conducting exploratory factor analysis of the questionnaire first, and then comparing other competitive models that may exist in confirmatory factor analysis?
Validity of the findings: The factor structure and psychometric properties of the ATQ-8 have been analyzed in two countries.  The manuscript is just a simple replication of the existing research, I can't see its contribution to the literature.
Additional comments: This study aims to analyze the validity of the ATQ-8 in Spanish samples. But the factor structure and psychometric properties of the ATQ-8 have been analyzed in two countries. As pointed out at the end of the manuscript, since this study did not include clinical samples, we were unable to analyze whether ATQ-8 could be used as a screening measure to detect unipolar depression.


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

Input:
Title: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE AUTOMATIC THOUGHTS QUESTIONNAIRE-8 IN TWO SPANISH NONCLINICAL SAMPLES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: See my comments as below.
Experimental design: See my comments as below.
Validity of the findings: See my comments as below.
Additional comments: 1. Abstract. Method should specify other scales used in this study and the purpose of these scales. Main statistical methods should also be reported.
2. No a separate paragraph to describe the conclusion of this study. For conclusions, Spanish samples is broad, which should be detailed 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: DUAL-TASKING EFFECTS ON STATIC AND DYNAMIC POSTURAL BALANCE PERFORMANCE: A COMPARISON BETWEEN ENDURANCE AND TEAM SPORT ATHLETES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: For statistical analysis, Cohens'd seems a bit "tacked on" and not interpreted later on. I would add cut-offs and use it in the discussion. If not, I'd suggest getting rid of it all together.
Validity of the findings: Explain a bit further on why you want to see a lower sway velocity and a smaller sway area in your discussion. I see it in many papers, but most don't explain why that is advantageous regarding balance and postural control. Further regarding postural control, is the postural control you're measuring more unconscious or conscious and how would affect sway velocity and sway area?
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: DUAL-TASKING EFFECTS ON STATIC AND DYNAMIC POSTURAL BALANCE PERFORMANCE: A COMPARISON BETWEEN ENDURANCE AND TEAM SPORT ATHLETES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors state that they will 'compare static and dynamic postural balance control between TP and END athletes. Since TP and END differ for cognitive sport-related demands, they also investigated PBC performance in DT conditions'. and that is what the reported in the results, discussion, conclusion.
The article flows well and is understandable. There are some minor word usage/grammar problems. I mention some of them below my comment about figure 1. Although the current wording and sentence structure has some minor problems it is still understandable.

Fig 1 – Graphs B and C in figure 1 have the y axis labeled as  ‘time (s)’. Graph A has no units assigned to the y axis.

Intro
Line 65 – For instance, high postural skills enable to run in a highly
Reviewer suggestion – need to reword to make more understandable
Line 66 - Likewise, it has been shown a positive correlation between postural stability
and performance in basketball (Perrin, 1991).
Reviewer suggestion – maybe ‘a positive correlation has been shown between…..’
Line 77 - About that, the comparison between team player athletes (TP) and endurance athletes (END) is of interest.

Reviewer suggestion – delete ‘about that’, or change in another way.

Line 78 - The firsts must simultaneously process multiple information while executing at the same time the skills of the game

Reviewer suggestion – possible delete ‘while at the same time’ (simultaneously already means at the same time)

Line 80 - The seconds must perform only continuous and cyclical repetitions
Reviewer suggestion- reword, possibly ‘END must perform…..’

Line 89 - without concurrently perform other cognitive or motor tasks

Reviewer suggestion- need to reword

Line 96 - This because TP are used to face concurrent cognitive
Reviewer suggestion – need to reword, possibly ‘This is because TP are used to dealing with concurrent cognitive tasks’

Methods

Line 127 - the sway path mean velocity

Reviewer suggestion – I realize that velocity in balance research is commonly misrepresented, BUT, velocity is a vector and since the postural sway movement that you are reporting doesn’t have a defined direction than the measure you are reporting is not velocity, but rather it is speed.

Line 148 - Briefly, the smaller is the FB, the better is the dynamic postural performance; whilst for the FiB and GB the higher is the value, the better is the dynamic postural performance.

Reviewer suggestion – need to reword

Discussion
Line 259 – Nevertheless, the unexpected finding of the present study should make think about the choice of the secondary task while driving and developing training

Reviewer suggestion – need to reword, maybe ‘Nevertheless, the unexpected finding of the present study makes it clear that the choice of the secondary task while developing training is important’,,,, or something similar
Experimental design: The experimental design is sound and resembles a similar design to many other published studies. The research question is stated at the end of the intro and matches the later sections of the article.
Methods are described appropriately.
Validity of the findings: The findings are interesting. One item that may result in questioning the results are the seeming trend of the TP to score better on the cognitive test than the END. The difference was not significant but goes in the same direction as the author's original hypothesis.
The provided data seems to be appropriate.
Conclusions match the results of the data analysis
Additional comments: This study is a pretty straight forward study on athletes, balance and dual tasking. I think it is an important contribution to the current research in that area