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: FAMILIARITY WITH VISUAL STIMULI BOOSTS RECENCY BIAS IN MACAQUES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, I was able to follow this manuscript without great difficulty.  I think the presentation of some of the material could be reordered to improve the flow in some instances and there are a few other minor suggestions for the author:
1.  A few minor typos throughout (e.g., line 14 has "despites" when "despite" is grammatically correct).
2.  There are some anthropomorphisms throughout that imply psychological mechanisms involved that I do not think are called for (e.g., line 15 has "animals were further deceived into believing..." - Animal behavior is not always determined be beliefs, but can be the result of lower level heuristics such as bias or habits that do not come from incorrect judgments).
3.  Lines 37-41:  From the reading of this section I am not sure what the "fluency of thought" hypothesis is or how it was supported by the study discussed.
4.  Line 69:  "behavior response" is redundant.
5.  Some of the text in the Results section belongs in the Methods section or is redundant with it.
6.  Line 137:  A missing reference is flagged - "(ref)".
7.  The logic behind the use of "weighted" cues were never clearly described (from what I could find).  I have no idea on how to interpret the absence of its effect because I don't know why it was ever included.
8.  Line 198:  "The impact of this apparently considerable modification of behavior was however very modest at best."  This sentence seems contradictory in that the impact was considerable and modest.
9.  More elaboration (or reference if it is commonly used elsewhere) is needed for the Behavioral Shift model for me to understand what is going on (Lines 127-133; 292-297).
10.  Figure 1 was excellently designed to help follow the procedure.
11.  Line 234:  The behavior was slightly above chance (~53-55%) so I wouldn't say that it was "dominated" by the recency effect.
12.  The caption for Figure 4 needs clarification.  I had a difficult time following what was plotted (and why).
Experimental design: I have some questions about the subjects and apparatus:  What were their ages? What was the reward?  Was the animal restricted of the reward prior to the session to maximize motivation?

Line 95:  Blocks are first mentioned without explanation of what they were, how they were arranged, and why they are part of the design.  This is a procedural detail I am not sure I could replicate.  Also, how many trials per session (or other session duration criteria)?

Lines 171-173:  A claim for no effect of the play direction of the cue is made without supporting statistics (even though at a glance it appears it would be the case).  Similar issues with clarity of statistical reporting (e.g., why weren't stats reported and in some cases what statistics were used and what were the comparisons) occurs in other places (e.g., Lines 198-205; 277-279; 308-309).
Validity of the findings: The claims that the data support the repetition bias effect in humans does not rule out alternative interpretations - such as responding to familiar stimuli that produced reward in the past (albeit, intermittently).  Linked to my criticism of the anthropomorphism about their "belief," these choice data could be a product of another mechanism and more work is necessary to make the claim that these choices were driven by some form of conscious belief.  I'm not immediately sure what could, but assessments like NHP meta-cognition would likely make the strongest case for that position (e.g., Middlebrooks & Sommer, 2011; JD Smith, 2009, etc.).  These data might be similar to the Illusory Truth Effect, to the extent that both involve responding to stimuli that are relatively more familiar (even if vaguely so), but we don't have a strong reason to believe that the monkeys would believe those stimuli to be more "truly correct" in a (metacognitive) confidence judgment task (however, that might be a very interesting experiment).

The primacy and recency effects is often involved in recalling stimuli that are presented in a list and individuals having a better time remembering the first and last items compared to the middle.  This task with the monkeys doesn't systematically test their memory, (i.e., they don't get tested on all morphed stimuli in the series and show better responsiveness to the first or last times), it just demonstrates that they are (a little) more responsive to what they most recently saw.  This could be a recency-like effect, but it might be that when rewards are random that they simply are slightly more likely to just select what best resembles what they just recently saw.  Since the monkeys demonstrated good judgment when the unambiguous cues were presented forward and backward, it would seem that they have great memory in this task.

The outcome of the behavioral shift (where the recency effect is strongest in intermediate session lags, but not the most recent) is unusual and needs more discussion.  This latency to showing a large recency effect might be a clue in what neuro/psychological processes are involved.  Also, in Figure 4, why doesn't the BS show both monkeys separately?  Was the effect shown representative of both monkeys?
Additional comments: I find these data interesting and would like to see them published.  That monkeys could attend to and discriminate between cues that are animated is novel (as far as I know) and could make for a nice small report.

I do, however, have issues with how the data were interpreted that either needs a stronger defense or needs adjusting (see Validity of the findings).  There are a few instances where I would not be able to directly replicate what was done in this study and requires more clarity and better organization (see Experimental design).  I would require these issues be addressed in some way before I could recommend publication.  Beyond that, I think there are some stylistic changes that would make reading this manuscript easier (see Basic reporting).


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

Input:
Title: FAMILIARITY WITH VISUAL STIMULI BOOSTS RECENCY BIAS IN MACAQUES
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript would be improved by careful editing and reorganization, eliminating redundancies. The authors' meaning is generally clear, but there are places (noted below) where clarity can be improved.

Given the authors' interpretation of their effects, the literature cited is largely drawn from studies of illusory truth effects in humans.

The structure of the article is appropriate, but some of the figures add little to what is reported in the text.

Lines 34-36: Indeed this is true, but the same effects may have affected other (and earlier) elections as well, and countless other decisions. “Fake news” may be a recent term, but decision biases due to repetition certainly are not.

Lines 39-41: additional details are needed to tie the evidence of perirhinal activity and fluency of thought

Line 44: change to “superior spatial and temporal resolution….that are required…”

Lines 43-45: This is confusing. The techniques used in the study under consideration are neither noninvasive, nor high resolution

Line 51: change to “two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) task…”. Note that this is actually a 2AFC DMTS task. (A 2AFC task could also be two-choice discrimination learning, or two-alternative matching-to-sample, or similar paradigms.) I suspect that the authors are using 2AFC rather than DMTS because, on ambiguous trials, there is no direct match-to-sample.

Lines 51-63 require careful editing and revision. It is difficult to understand what the authors are trying to say. Given that this section is largely redundant with the methods, these lines can be deleted to improve clarity.

Line 66: change to “Data were obtained….”  Also Line 234 to “…data unmistakably show…”

Lines 76-77: Clarify: all animals and trials used one single pair of images that was randomly selected, or each trial used a pair of images randomly selected?

Line 137: add citations at “ref”

Lines 136-140: This paragraph would be more appropriate in the Method section. It certainly is not Results, unless the authors report the training curves for the DMTS task. Lines 141-156 are also largely redundant with the Method. Reorganize to eliminate repetition, and report results in the Results section.

Line 165: What does “data and results not shown” mean?

Line 166: Use “while” and “since” only to denote the passage of time; in this sentence, change “While” to “Whereas”

Line 167, “as explained later”: These trials were explained already, in the method section

Figures 2A and 2B are not very informative, given the scale of the Y axis

Lines 178-191: This is Discussion, rather than Results

Line 183: change to “This is because…”

Line 191: What constitutes a success on these ambiguous trials? Do you just mean the percentage of trials that were rewarded? This was set at 50% by design. There was no strategy to be figured out.

Lines 199-203: It isn’t clear why this condition was introduced. This should be explained in the Method section. If the means are not significantly different from the continuous dynamic morphs, then there is no need to speculate on what caused the difference (i.e., there isn’t one). If the means are significantly different, report the statistics to show this and then interpret. Also, I don’t understand the last sentence of this section.

Line 208: Here and in many other places, the authors use a semicolon with no conjunction. A period to form separate sentences is more appropriate and easier to read.

Lines 208-209: Unnecessary explanation of how to compute a percentage

Line 226: revise to “…one image from…”

Lines 227-228: Yes, these terms were borrowed from the study of serial-position effects, where they mean something quite different than what is meant here

Lines 255-259: This result is unsurprising. The recency image was closest to the choice images temporally. Further, it might be noted that, in investigations that produce serial position curves by animals, that recency biases are common, as the authors acknowledge in the Discussion.

Lines 265-269: Redundant with Method section
Experimental design: This is original primary research within the scope of the journal. The method (testing the effects of repetition on the categorization of ambiguous dynamic morph stimuli) is tangentially related at best to the human illusory-truth paradigm. Analyses are unclear and seem likely to violate assumptions of the inferential statistics employed.

Lines 168 and 173: Where are the inferential statistics to support these claims?

Lines 199-203: It isn’t clear why this condition was introduced. This should be explained in the Method section. If the means are not significantly different from the continuous dynamic morphs, then there is no need to speculate on what caused the difference (i.e., there isn’t one). If the means are significantly different, report the statistics to show this and then interpret. Also, I don’t understand the last sentence of this section.

Lines 234-243: It is not clear how these t-tests were conducted. If session-by-session comparisons of PI and RI were made, separately for each animal, then the test violates the assumption of independence; that is, RI=100-PI. A nonparametric statistic (or simple z-test for comparing significance of proportions) should be used. In any case, 55% vs 45% hardly seems dominant. Further, inferential statistics cannot yield a p value of 0.

Lines 311-316: What is the relation between the animals’ choices on S1 (rewarded compared to not) and their choice on S2? The question is about specific stimuli: Were the monkeys more likely to repeat a response to an ambiguous stimulus in S2 if they had been rewarded for that response in S1.
Validity of the findings: This is an interesting and novel study, and produces a reliable effect that requires explanation; however, I am highly skeptical of the interpretation that the authors advanced. Rather, it seems to me that the bias toward ‘how the stimulus ends’ rather than ‘how the stimulus begins’ is predicted by the literature on recency effects proper, and the increase in this bias with repetition is interesting but inconclusive with respect to what the animals “believed” about the stimuli.

Line 61: does this study actually reveal anything about beliefs?

Lines 288-289: This study reveals nothing about the animals’ beliefs. The animals may have come to believe that their strategy was correct, as the authors claim. The animals may have come to understand that strategy didn’t matter, but there is no reason to assume that responding would have approximated chance in that instance. If strategy didn’t matter, the animals may have perseverated on the ‘recency’ strategy (as indeed the data suggest). The results are ambiguous with respect to what the animals were thinking.  Because the majority of responses were to the recent image, and responses were randomly rewarded, the majority of rewards on ambiguous stimuli followed RI responses.

Line 312, “…strongly affect”: this seems over-stated for changes in response of this magnitude; change to “…significantly affect…” (although I have concerns about the appropriateness of using t-tests to compare RI and PI).

Lines 338-343: An increase in salience of the recency portion of dynamic stimuli, or at least the increased control over behavior of this portion of ambiguous dynamic stimuli, was observed. This increase was observed for stimuli that repeat (S1 and S2), and is not predicted by trial-to-trial effect. However, none of this suggests anything definitive about the animals’ beliefs. Shifts in responding away from randomness can indicate learned helplessness as well as learning a response strategy. It is certainly a bold leap to conclude that the finding is functionally related to the effects of repetition on illusory truth.
Additional comments: I commend the authors for attempting to extend to nonhuman primates a phenomenon heretofore reported only for humans.  Additional analyses (i.e., of the response on S2 conditioned on the response and outcome of S1, to test for stimulus-specific memory effects) and other edits (e.g., careful editing to improve organization and clarity and to eliminate redundancy) are recommended as the authors revise the manuscript for future submission.


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: FAMILIARITY WITH VISUAL STIMULI BOOSTS RECENCY BIAS IN MACAQUES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The introduction does a better job setting up the the experiment and I like that the predictions were explicitly spelt out.  I still think the intro could be fleshed out a little better to aid the naive reader (e.g., smoother transitions, more explicit clarity of what the predictions are for the current study), but I don't feel such adjustments are critical.

Some phrasing could be adjusted for clarity of meaning: e.g., Line 201: "we were hopeful that the monkeys would make a genuine attempt to identify the “correct” target..." could be rephrased as "We believe that when the ambiguous cues were presented that the monkeys were responding based upon the learned rules for making a "correct" response for the dynamic trials, rather than responding randomly to trials where the underlying rule made reward delivery random").  A minor quibble, but everyday terms like "genuine" has implications that the monkeys could and would make "disingenuous" responses.  That said, if the meaning of that phrase was made very clear, I wouldn't oppose this phrasing in a discussion section where (I, at least, would allow) authors a little more artistic leeway, but I don't like it in the methods.

A few minor typographical errors linger (e.g., Lines 39, 86, 143, 179, 217, 319, 327)
Experimental design: No Comment
Validity of the findings: I do not quite follow the "representational momentum" explanation for the data (Lines 326-343).  I don't have a background in that literature and so I think further clarification might be helpful for naive readers to 'connect the dots' linking this effect and the effect in the paper.

I think the discussion of the effects of stimulus repetition is a much stronger candidate explanation for these results.  It, however, could be tied into the results a little better in terms of learning (e.g., if the animals were biased to adopt a 'recency' strategy for the ambiguous trials, then repeating those trials with familiar stimuli may strengthened that strategy even if that strategy was irrelevant to the outcome).  This effect might be somewhat related to "superstition" in nonhuman animals (e.g., Skinner, 1948), this however is an off-the-cuff speculation that would need a more thorough consideration.

I now like how the Illusory Truth Effect is integrated into the paper, it fits better given the discussion of repetition the outcomes in this paper.
Additional comments: Overall, this revision is much improved over the original and appears to address the major points that I brought up.  I do have some more minor suggestions for improvement, but nothing must be necessarily addressed to prohibit publication.  My best wishes to the authors.


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: FAMILIARITY WITH VISUAL STIMULI BOOSTS RECENCY BIAS IN MACAQUES
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript is improved tremendously over the original submission and, although editorial editing is still required, the manuscript is easy to read and understand. Extensive revisions have addressed most of the reviewers’ issues with the original manuscript. Specifically, my concerns about the focus of the literature review, the heavy discussion of what the animals supposedly believed and its relation to the illusory truth effect in humans, and the statistical analyses of the original manuscript have been ameliorated in the revision.

Lines 38-42: Everything said here is accurate; however, this memory effect is not a neuroeconomic / decision-making outcome (other than in the broad sense that the monkeys have to decide how to respond, under which umbrella every study is arguably a decision-making study). I think the authors are just trying to show how biases from research with humans have been replicated with nonhuman animals. An example from the decision-making literature (e.g., studies of Monty Hall performance or even visual illusions with animals) would be better.

Lines 310-311: If only the monkeys understood that these trials were being nondifferentially rewarded! Certainly monkeys will try to maximize rewards and minimize effort. But these are animals that have been trained under conditions that lead to high-probability reward. They don’t know that reinforcement is random, and thus are likely trying to figure out the rule or associative contingencies to earn reward on every trial. They may continue to try strategies (even those that aren’t fruitful or efficient, as when an animal develops a superstitious behavior).

The figures are interesting and informative, although their scale underscores the fact that these are small effects (e.g., each line in F2c,d is about 5% thick; each dot in F4c covers about 0.1 of each axis).
Experimental design: This is original primary scholarship that falls within the scope of this journal. The use of nondifferentially reinforced ambiguous stimuli to probe for perceptual or response biases is a standard and successful procedure (e.g., Parrish, Brosnan & Beran’s 2015 study of the Delboeuf illusion in humans and monkeys). The morphed stimuli used here are novel and interesting. The experimental procedures included appropriate controls.

Examination of Figure 1b indicates a potential issue that I had failed to notice in my original review. Although the probe stimuli are, by definition, ambiguous, as they cross the line between stimulus A and B categories, and include stimulus states (frames 4 and 5) that had been rewarded as part of stimulus A as well as stimulus states (frames 7 and 8) for which the animal had a reinforcement history associated with stimulus B. However, the recency portions were not ambiguous. If the authors are correct that familiarity biases the animal toward recency, then one would expect the same effect had the ambiguous stimuli been the perceptually more ambiguous frames 5,6,7 or 7,6,5. This could be tested in future studies.
Validity of the findings: Although the effect sizes are not large, by the authors’ own admission, it seems undeniable that the monkeys were biased in the direction of the most recent component of the ambiguous stimuli. It seems equally clear that this bias gets stronger when the monkeys are viewing an ambiguous stimulus a second time, even though days intervened between viewings on most occasions.

What is less clear is what this pattern of results means, and whether it is a substantive contribution to the literature. I actually find the most surprising result to be the fact that the recency bias wasn’t even stronger, and didn’t get substantially stronger across training. These results, plus the novelty of the question and methods, might justify publication. But what would help in my interpretation of the change in performance with familiarity is to see the recency bias on S2 as a function of what the response was on S1, and whether that response was rewarded. I strongly suspect—and I don’t think the authors disagree, based on their discussion—that in the absence of another categorization rule, monkeys are biased toward the most recent stimuli, and that the effects reported here can be modeled accurately on the basis of reinforcement history and stimulus generalization (i.e., the most recent image of an ambiguous stimulus has a reinforcement history that is greater than the first image in that ambiguous sequence).

Although the authors are correct that these results strengthen an extant literature on monkeys’ preference for recency vs primacy, this replication alone is not sufficiently substantive to merit publication.

Although the illusory truth discussion is appropriately constrained to one suggestive paragraph, it remains in the title, promising more than the study can deliver.
Additional comments: Congratulations on a greatly improved manuscript, showing careful attention and thoughtful responses to earlier comments. If the analysis I suggested in my original review (i.e., of the response on S2 conditioned on the response and outcome of S1) is added, I might have more confidence in recommending the manuscript for publication.


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

Input:
Title: APPLICATION OF OPEN FIELD, TONIC IMMOBILITY, AND ATTENTION BIAS TESTS TO HENS WITH DIFFERENT RANGING PATTERNS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: New technology has become available to monitor animals in large groups on an individual level and we are puzzled by the extent of individuality e.g. in “simple” animals like chickens. In most cases we have no idea how this variation in e.g. ranging patterns comes about and which trait(s) underlie this variation i.e. cause it. This study is not the first to apply behavior tests to laying hens with different ranging patterns but the valuable thing about the attention bias test is that it was pharmacologically validated. It also has some biological meaning for laying hens because they (including their wild ancestors) always face the dilemma between being safe and starve or taking risks and find food. Therefore, this is a very interesting, valuable study adding new knowledge of the (ranging) behavior of laying hens and possible underlying personality differences.
Fear tests often face the problem of ceiling effects: The stimulus is too strong or too weak so the results do not distinguish the tested animals satisfactorily. This is also the case in this study to some extent because the indoor birds were too reluctant to feed in most cases. The limitations of this study are discussed by the authors.
For the most part the manuscript is understandable and conforms to the standard of a high-ranking scientific journal. Ideas for improving the figures and clarifying some parts of the text are listed below. Raw data are supplied in a clear format.
Experimental design: The statistical analyses seem sound and appropriate for the dataset.
However, the selection of the hens remain unclear: Was the selection of hens roughly equal between the 3 pens or was mainly one pen chosen? I am asking that because often pens differ how many hens range. So, it could be that in the high ranging hen group you only picked birds from one pen and in the low ranging hen group you exclusively or mainly picked hens from another pen. This would be important for the interpretation of the results

Line 140: Why did you select 67 hens? How did you choose this sample size?

Line 198: Adding to the point about choosing your focal hens your selection based on plumage could influence the results. There are reports in the literature that birds with plumage or skin damage are more stressed (e.g. Krause et al., 2011). If you could not make subgroups due to plumage quality, why did you not choose your birds randomly? You confounded ranging behavior with plumage quality (later mentioned in the results).

Why did you choose unequal numbers of indoor and ranging hens?

Line 249f: Why did you use 2 different calls?
Lines 270ff: It is logical that there was an effect (or trend) for the indoor birds and not the outdoor birds because the variation in plumage quality was larger in the outdoor birds. Is this the reason why you tested the 2 groups in 2 separate analyses?
Line 276: But you confounded feather score with ranging in that way. You should have used feather score as a covariate instead.
Line 300: Were these 48 birds all birds that ate or how was the sample size reduced to 48?

Line 335: Why was the total number of indoor birds lower than that of outdoor birds?
Did you test whether the number of birds feeding in the novel arena or the number of birds feeding after the alarm call differed among the groups?
Validity of the findings: The results are well discussed in a meaningful way where inconclusive results are acknowledged.

Raw data are supplied in a clear format.
Additional comments: Lines 59f: This is not a good summary of the results. Latency could not be measured in many birds so you should rather write that than that this was a poor marker.
Line 118: Zeltner and Hirt also used a hawk model: Zeltner, E.; Hirt, H. (2008): A note on fear reaction of three different genetic strains of laying hens to a simulated hawk attack in the hen run of a free-range system. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, pp. 69–73.
Animals and Housing
There is a discrepancy about housing conditions. First the authors write that the birds were housed in the same conditions as during rearing (Line 147) and that they only used birds from the control = just litter no perches. But then the pens are described to contain perches (line 152). Was litter also provided?
RFID: What was the frequency?
Line 145: It is not clear whether in the pens with novel objects there were the perches, was there one room with novel objects, one room with perches, one room with controls or were they mixed?
Line 151: Did the pens have litter?
Line 159: Did the outdoor range have vegetation?
Lines 204f: How could the birds range during testing times? When they were tested, they were confined to the test box.
Test arena: Was there light to facilitate the videos in the testing arena? What was the light level in the testing arena? Was it comparable to the light level in the barn? Barns are much darker than the range and ranging birds might be more used to bright lights than birds that always remain in the barn.
Line 221: The open field test was repeated or why did you count the number of steps during habituation?
Line 227: Were the pen feeders in the barn? Did you watch whether all test birds ate from those feeders? Otherwise not all hens were acclimated to the novel food which could be a problem.
Line 236: To clarify, I would add ‘before habituation’ after ‘achieving this’.
Alarm calls: How did you make sure that the non-tested birds did not hear the alarm calls?
Line 249f: Why did you use 2 different calls?
Line 300: Were these 48 birds all birds that ate or how was the sample size reduced to 48?
Fig. 1 It makes no sense to connect the points because session is a distinct category. Instead of using the lines it would be better to have the categories indoor/outdoor on the same line to compare the latencies between the 2 groups. This is not so easy now. The arrangement in Fig. 2 is much clearer.
Line 335: Why was the total number of indoor birds lower than that of outdoor birds?
Did you test whether the number of birds feeding in the novel arena or the number of birds feeding after the alarm call differed among the groups?
First paragraph of discussion: I agree that the fact whether a bird ate food in a novel environment is a useful parameter to distinguish the groups but why do you call this a measure of attention bias?
Line 354: Could you control hunger state? Indoor birds are always close to the feeding trough whereas ranging birds might be hungrier. It should be mentioned that the attention bias test implies that the hunger state was constant among birds.
Line 467: Albentosa et al. is not cited in the text.


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: APPLICATION OF OPEN FIELD, TONIC IMMOBILITY, AND ATTENTION BIAS TESTS TO HENS WITH DIFFERENT RANGING PATTERNS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The study is clearly described and presented and well-placed within the context of the previous literature.

It would be useful to know which behavioural tests were used in the previous literature to classify indoor preferring hens as more fearful, since your validation might also include these tests.

I have no other comments about this section.
Experimental design: The study is generally rigorously performed and described. There is a pressing need to identify methods to assess subjective state in animals and the study is a welcome addition to the scientific literature in this area.

The main issue that concerned me is the use of measures relating to feeding to make inferences about animals' subjective state. The authors state that latency to eat in a novel arena is an informative measure of anxious state. I would propose that the two groups used in the study: indoor and outdoor-preferring hens, are likely to also differ in their motivation to access food. It is suggested in the methods that the ad libitum feed is provided in the litter pens, and not in the range. It therefore seems likely that 'indoor' birds would have fed more recently than 'outdoor' birds due to their proximity to the feeder. This would reduce indoor birds' motivation to access food in the test. Secondly, I would hypothesise that 'outdoor' birds might be more motivated to access food due to their more active lifestyle. These two factors might cause differing food motivation in the two groups, compounding their responses to the behavioural test. I would like to know more about the food motivations of the two groups e.g. were any food motivation tests performed or was access to food monitored or controlled during the pre-test period? Can the authors discuss the influence of food motivation on attention bias and other behavioural tests.
Validity of the findings: The authors provide a great discussion of the limitations of behavioural tests that incorporate the requirements of movement and in the use of subjects at both ends of a behavioural spectrum (high and low fearfulness). The study is a great example of the limitations of such an approach and the authors provide a comprehensive discussion of this.

However, I have concerns about the main finding that latency to eat in a novel arena is an informative measure of emotional state due to the unknown underlying food motivations in the two groups of birds (as explained in the previous section). I would ask that the authors provide more information about whether/how food motivation was assessed in the pre-test period and/or discussion of the limitations of a feed-based approach.
Additional comments: At the beginning of the discussion, could you remind the reader of the aims of the study.

I wonder if the tonic immobility test could not differentiate between the groups in this study and previous studies, because it is a measure of an antipredator response which may be relatively inelastic to behavioural differences between the two groups? In contrast the novel arena test measures response to a less severe threat (and one that we already know the indoor preferring birds are likely to respond negatively to).


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: PERIPHERAL BLOOD BOVINE LYMPHOCYTES AND MAP SHOW DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT PROTEOME CHANGES AND IMMUNE PATHWAYS IN HOST-PATHOGEN INTERACTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I have made several minor suggestions in my annotated pdf. Overall the writing is very clear and succinct, and was a pleasure to read.
Experimental design: the discussion of the design and results was unusually clear and well written.
Validity of the findings: Very interesting results. With the exception of the IL-12 issue, i have only minor suggested changes
Additional comments: an exceptionally well written and easy to understand article, thank you. All suggested changes are in my annotated comments. I may be mis-understanding the IL-12 issue in the prior literature, but you will have to clarify please!


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: PERIPHERAL BLOOD BOVINE LYMPHOCYTES AND MAP SHOW DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT PROTEOME CHANGES AND IMMUNE PATHWAYS IN HOST-PATHOGEN INTERACTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript described the proteomic analysis of the exoproteomes/secretomes of peripheral blood lymphocytes co-incubated with Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in both an immunocompetent and immunomodulated animal model. Although the manuscript has its merits, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.
Please, find below a list of points related to each section of the manuscript.

Abstract
•	L28-33: Your introductory part of the abstract needs more detailing, those lines were not enough justification for the studied point, there is a focus on MAP shedding while the conclusion line stating the lack of information regarding host-pathogen interplay. I suggest that you restate this part to make it more relevant to the study point. Also, in L30 the author stated that “can be transmitted to food”. Which food? is it food for human consumption or animal food. I suggest that the author should be more precise and state facts in more clear way.
•	L37: up to this part of the manuscript, the reader is not familiar with the term immune deviant animal, and when checking the reference of that term (reference 20) it describes a cattle immunophenotype related to mastitis. I suggest changing this statement to “a different immune susceptibility cattle referred as immune deviant cattle”.
•	L42: MAP reacted differently to the host, different in which way? Or differently in compared to what? I don’t think this is an accurate phrase here. I suggest removing this sentence and just stating directly “Additionally, MAP exoproteome differed ....”

Introduction
•	L61: change it to “MAP could be considered as foodborne pathogens”
•	L64: missing reference.
•	L71-74: this statement is confusing and needs rewriting. The outcome is not related to the first sentence.
•	L79: “We wanted” change it to “our aim is to gain ….”.
•	L97-99: this statement needs restating. Stating the aim of the study here and restating it later is redundancy.

Material and Methods
•	L113: “these experiments” change to “this study”
•	L130: co-incubation is a better description.
•	L136: the author just mentioned Bradford assay without reference or explanation. I suggest adding both.
•	L161: I don’t understand “control and ID or samples”. Please restate to make it less confusing.
•	L160-161 and L163-164: please clarify how in the first sentence the five-fold in normalized abundance make a protein is differentially expressed, while in the second one protein abundance ratio of ≥1.5. do both statements refer to different parameters? If so, please consider consistency of the referred parameter throughout the section.
•	L170-171: please state clearly all the bioinformatic analyses done by ShinyGO.
Experimental design: Although the manuscript has an acceptable experimental design to answer the defined research question, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.
Please, find below a list of points related to each section of the manuscript.

Technical issue
•	L115-118: I don’t see a reason to grow MAP on solid media and collect it by rinsing and scratching the surface of the media with PBS, instead it could have been grown in liquid media and obtain a clear CFU count in order to calculate a clear MOI.
•	L132: Strange quantification of the MAP bacteria used in this experiment. 15 ug is not the right measurement of an organism to be used in a co-incubation experiment, this weight could include unviable bacteria or random proteins from the media since there was scratching during the preparation of the bacterial suspension. Also, no multiplicity of infection (MOI) was mentioned which would question whether this experiment was done under optimal condition or not.
•	L127: Can the author state the reason animals were tested at least 11 times for inclusion in the study? Why specifically 11 times.
Validity of the findings: Results
•	L177: the term “in vitro infection” was used here, while previously the author used co-incubation without stating the reason for this change. Does it refer to a different aspect of the current infection? If not, please consider the consistency of the used term throughout the manuscript.
•	L181: the in brackets; refer to the figure only using its number, no need for describing its nature.
•	L184: “less” instead of “small”
•	L191: the author didn’t clarify the description of the “we used a hierarchical clustering tree and network” is it a software or an analysis. Please finish the sentence.

Discussion
•	L228: “From tuberculosis” is not a complete statement. Instead, use “As observed in tuberculosis infection”.
•	L265-268: based on the previously mentioned findings, the author may have concluded and stated a better conclusion. I suggest rewriting this part with better statements that describe what is the possible effect of downregulating MHC class I and II and the upregulation of the complement fixation pathway on infection of an intracellular organism like MAP.
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: PERIPHERAL BLOOD BOVINE LYMPHOCYTES AND MAP SHOW DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT PROTEOME CHANGES AND IMMUNE PATHWAYS IN HOST-PATHOGEN INTERACTION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The author made appropriate corrections based on my comments


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

Input:
Title: MAPPING THEME TRENDS AND RECOGNIZING HOT SPOTS IN POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This bibliometric analysis presents the research progress on postmenopausal osteoporosis in
recent five years. It is a piece of "routine" work. The analysis needs to combine subject specific expert knowledge with careful bibliometric analysis, applying suitable bibliometric methods and tools. And the article should be clearly written, and the results also should be presented and discussed adequately to provide interesting information for the relevant scientific community from an innovative perspective.

I have several concerns about the paper:

1.	Little innovation was shown. The authors should state what is new in this study. The novelty of the study should be added to the manuscript.
2.	Introduction should be improved. For example, in line 74-76, “While the above reviews to a certain extent, reflects the research status on postmenopausal osteoporosis, different scholars have different research contents and views in this field, and lack of long-term bibliometric research.” Do you think five years’ bibliometric analysis represents a long-term research? How you think bibliometric analysis on postmenopausal osteoporosis in recent five years can presents the research progress and theme trends? Why do you only choose the recent five years as the study period?
3.	Line 82-105 should be appeared in the literature review section. This paragraph only summarized paper published using biclustering method. What can these statements make sense in your paper?
4.	Line 116. “Data collection”. “PubMed, providing free access to MEDLINE, OLDMEDLINE, and other related databases and developed by the national center for biotechnology information (NCBI) of the national library of medicine (NLM), from which related data were extracted and downloaded without the restriction of language.” There are some other comprehensive ones, such as "Scopus", “WOS” available. Authors should explain why PubMed was the chosen one rather than others or include a broader set of databases in the study.
5.	Results and Discussion. Authors simply listed some statistical information about Growth of the relevant Literature, Distribution characteristics of literature, Most Active Journals, which will not help. Moreover, most of the discussion seems like an explanation of the figures.
6.	The conclusion is too simple, and it is just a repeat of the research purpose.
7.	The presentation of the figures is not good with Low image quality.


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: MAPPING THEME TRENDS AND RECOGNIZING HOT SPOTS IN POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This article is in need of editing for English usage. Many sentences require rewriting to clarify their exact meaning. For example, "The health of the elderly has received more and more attention this year." (Line 39) [Do the authors mean "in recent years"?]; "MeSH terms can image the content of articles and a great quantity" (Line 253); "To summarize, it is essential to assess the possibility of atypical fractures in osteoporotic patients when they beef about" (Line 290); In addition, the use of capital letter and small letter requires attention. For example, "and developed by the national center for biotechnology information (NCBI) of the national library of medicine (NLM)," (Line 119); "Additional Studies on postmenopausal" (Line 388).

The reference style needs to conform to the usual convention. For example, only author's last name but not initial is needed when referring to a publication. For example, Line 92, 101, and 102.

A few citations seem to be out of place. For example, reference [3] should be placed at the end of Line 56 instead of 51.

The reference for the sentence "Yu, Z et al characterized the important research topics in cancer discovery using gene expression profiles" (Line 92) is missing.

The authors mentioned "To the best knowledge of the authors, for the time being, there have been few bibliometric articles on postmenopausal osteoporosis.". Please provide references for and a brief descriptive of these articles.

The authors mentioned "A FRAX,... has been developed and acknowledged by the WHO to predict an individual 10-year risk of major or hip osteoporotic fractures.". According to a Bulletin of the World Health Organization (https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/94/12/16-188532/en/): "FRAX® tool to evaluate fracture risks of patients is not a “WHO tool” and has not been developed, endorsed, evaluated or validated by WHO".  Please revise the sentence accordingly.
Experimental design: Methods has provided sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.

The Discussion section will benefit if the authors can, based on their findings, identify and speculate what are the needed but missing area of postmenopausal osteoporosis research.
Additional comments: No comment.


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

Input:
Title: MAPPING THEME TRENDS AND RECOGNIZING HOT SPOTS IN POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors should minimize long sentences
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: Comment
       The text is well written and the review of postmenopausal osteoporosis literature seems to represent quite adequately the temporal development and evolution of these studies. However, few minor specific corrections has been made in the annotated pdf while the general comments are below:
Result
1.	In table 1, the authors may add the impact factor (If available) of the journals and country of affiliation. This will help correlate if they also align with the top productive countries.
Discussion
1.	The authors may interpret the observation of publication of ≥20 articles per author. It is an indication of specialized area of research. Hence, the absence of transient authors who publish sporadically.
2.	The authors should briefly discuss the top journal. These journals are potentially publication niche for future breakthrough in postmenopausal osteoporosis research and should be watched.
3.	English being official language of England and USA may be a contributing factor of the high publications, but I seriously doubt if that is the major reason. Major reason: USA and UK (England) have a high gross domestic expenditure on research and development (R&D) as published by World Bank. USA has gross expenditure on R&D above the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of 2.3% with UK close by. A country’s scientific output is a reflection of its earlier investment in research and development. This is evident in many bibliometric studies as cited in the article.
4.	The authors should minimize long sentences


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: MAPPING THEME TRENDS AND RECOGNIZING HOT SPOTS IN POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Thank you for the considerable work in revising your paper. I found that my previous comments were addressed and noticed the hard work made for making the contents of the paper clear. I appreciated the effort and am therefore satisfied with the revised version.


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: MAPPING THEME TRENDS AND RECOGNIZING HOT SPOTS IN POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have adequately addressed all my comments except there are still more than a few errors in the Reference section.
Experimental design: Methods described has provided with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions were appropriately stated and were connected to the original question investigated. They were limited to those supported by the results.
Additional comments: The authors have adequately addressed all my comments except there are still errors in the Reference section.
For example,
1. The volume and page number information is missing in "Chen C, Ibekwe‐Sanjuan F, Hou JJJotASfIS, and Technology. 2010. The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple‐perspective cocitation analysis."
2. There are errors in the authors' names in "Chen CJJotAfIS, and Technology. 2014. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature.  57:359-377."
3. Abbreviated title should be used in "Cui L LW YL, Zhang H, Hou YF, Huang YN. 2008. Development of a text mining system based on the co-occurrence of bibliographic items in literature. New Technology of Library and Information Service 8:70-75."
4. Sentence case instead of title case should be used in "Kemmler W, Engelke K, and von Stengel S. 2016. Long-Term Exercise and Bone Mineral Density Changes in Postmenopausal Women--Are There Periods of Reduced Effectiveness? J Bone Miner Res 31:215-222. 10.1002/jbmr.2608"


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: MAPPING THEME TRENDS AND RECOGNIZING HOT SPOTS IN POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Review comment
    The authors has greatly improved the manuscript. Just a minor correction:
1.	In line 163, the authors wrote: In total, 5,247 literatures, 4,466 articles and 781 reviews (Fig.1).
I guess it should read: In total, 5,247 literatures comprising 4,466 articles and 781 reviews for clarity or the later part put in bracket as in figure 1.

2.	In figure 1, the authors wrote: 5,247 articles identified (including 4,466 articles and 781 reviews.
3.	Article was used twice. I believe the use of “literature” in the first instance as used in the result section would be better than “article”. Hence: 5,247 literatures identified (including 4,466 articles and 781 reviews).
Experimental design: Concerns have been addressed
Validity of the findings: Concerns have been addressed
Additional comments: Review comment
    The authors has greatly improved the manuscript. Just a minor correction:
1.	In line 163, the authors wrote: In total, 5,247 literatures, 4,466 articles and 781 reviews (Fig.1).
I guess it should read: In total, 5,247 literatures comprising 4,466 articles and 781 reviews for clarity or the later part put in bracket as in figure 1.

2.	In figure 1, the authors wrote: 5,247 articles identified (including 4,466 articles and 781 reviews.
3.	Article was used twice. I believe the use of “literature” in the first instance as used in the result section would be better than “article”. Hence: 5,247 literatures identified (including 4,466 articles and 781 reviews).


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: MAPPING THEME TRENDS AND RECOGNIZING HOT SPOTS IN POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The revisions are fine.


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: MAPPING THEME TRENDS AND RECOGNIZING HOT SPOTS IN POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors have adequately addressed all my comments except one of the citation can be further improved.
Experimental design: Methods described has provided with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Validity of the findings: The conclusions were appropriately stated and were connected to the original question investigated. They were limited to those supported by the results.
Additional comments: The authors have adequately addressed all my comments. One final suggestion, please fix the citation for the gCLUTO software. Currently, it is shown as "K 2014". The authors may want to consider showing the URL of the software  (http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/gkhome/cluto/gcluto/overview) along with its original publication "Rasmussen M & Karypis G. 2004. gcluto: An interactive clustering, visualization, and analysis system. UMN-CS TR-04, 21(7)."


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: MAPPING THEME TRENDS AND RECOGNIZING HOT SPOTS IN POSTMENOPAUSAL OSTEOPOROSIS RESEARCH: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Concerns have been resolved
Experimental design: Concerns have been resolved
Validity of the findings: N/A
Additional comments: Concerns have been resolved


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

Input:
Title: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF G-PROTEIN-COUPLED RECEPTOR (GPCR) AND PROTEIN KINASE A (PKA) CDNA IN PERINEREIS AIBUHITENSIS AND EXPRESSION DURING BENZO(A)PYRENE EXPOSURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript shows clear and professional organization and sufficient reference and background. All the data were analyzed and interpreted appropriately. The figures and tables are shown with good quality and support the hypotheses.
Experimental design: Methods described in the manuscript is sufficient to follow. Research question well defined, relevant and meaningful.
Validity of the findings: After systematic evaluation, the authors successfully finished molecular characterization of G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) and protein kinase A (PKA) cDNA in Perinereis aibuhitensis and expression during benzo(a)pyrene exposure. This new study is absolutely suitable for publication. Data was interpreted completely and supported the conclusion.
Additional comments: Overall, the manuscript contains sufficient data to support its conclusion. The authors investigated the effects of benzo(a)pyrene (B[a]p) on GPCR signaling by using the expression patterns of these two genes during B(a)p exposure determined by real-time fluorescence quantitative PCR. The full-length cDNAs of the PaGPCR and PaPKA were isolated and characterized in P. aibuhitensis for the first time. These results suggested that GPCR signaling in P. aibuhitensis was involved in the polychaete’s response to environmental contaminants. The organization of the full text is scientific and professional for publication.


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

Input:
Title: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF G-PROTEIN-COUPLED RECEPTOR (GPCR) AND PROTEIN KINASE A (PKA) CDNA IN PERINEREIS AIBUHITENSIS AND EXPRESSION DURING BENZO(A)PYRENE EXPOSURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this paper, the author has isolated the cDNAs GPCR and PKA in P. aibuhitensis, and also investigated the expression pattern of these two genes during B(a)p exposure. The paper has brought out an interesting hypothesis, however, major changes and supplementary data are needed to improve the quality and integrity of the paper.
Experimental design: 1.	In Line 114, the author mentioned “four individuals were randomly sampled from each concentration group”, however, in the later section there was only one GPCR sequence generated, were the sequences all the same for the 4 samples?
2.	In the structure section, the structures of PaGPCR and PaPKA were only predicted from the amino acid sequences, which is not quite reliable. Further structural study will be needed to fully investigate the structure details of PaGPCR and PaPKA
3.	Study on the expression pattern of GPCR gene is not enough to clarify whether GPCR were involved in modulating the toxicity of B(a)p, experiments need to be done using the real proteins, not just the DNAs.
Validity of the findings: See below
Additional comments: 1.	The paper needs to be examined thoroughly by a native English speaker since there are several gramma mistakes. For example Line 80 “Because of the aromatic structures present a number of GPCR ligands”
2.	In Line 283 the author mentioned “This result was similar to reports in other invertebrates”, where are those reports? The author needs to at least cite the references, or generate a new table to compare the data
3.	Some of the figures are lack of legends, detailed description will be needed. Also he resolutions of all the figures must be improved


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

Input:
Title: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF G-PROTEIN-COUPLED RECEPTOR (GPCR) AND PROTEIN KINASE A (PKA) CDNA IN PERINEREIS AIBUHITENSIS AND EXPRESSION DURING BENZO(A)PYRENE EXPOSURE
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: In this manuscript, Yi et al describes the effect of benzo(a)pyrene exposure on the expression of two genes in P. aibuhitensis. They cloned and characterized the full-length G-protein-coupled receptor and also protein kinase A cDNAs. The authors found that B(a)p exposure significantly increased the expression of both GPCR and PKA in a time and concentration dependent manner. The authors hypothesized that the GPCR pathway is involved in the biotransformation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
The paper is well-structured and clearly written and the analysis of the data is reasonable. Some minor errors need to be addressed:
1. Please check the typological errors in the manuscript.
2. Please replace figure 4 and 7 with higher resolution images, the current ones are highly pixelated.
3. Supplementary images should be referenced in the main text.


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

Input:
Title: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF G-PROTEIN-COUPLED RECEPTOR (GPCR) AND PROTEIN KINASE A (PKA) CDNA IN PERINEREIS AIBUHITENSIS AND EXPRESSION DURING BENZO(A)PYRENE EXPOSURE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author has revised the manuscript comprehensively, all the points have been addressed carefully. The manuscript is ready for publication now.
Experimental design: N/A
Validity of the findings: N/A
Additional comments: N/A


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

Input:
Title: MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF G-PROTEIN-COUPLED RECEPTOR (GPCR) AND PROTEIN KINASE A (PKA) CDNA IN PERINEREIS AIBUHITENSIS AND EXPRESSION DURING BENZO(A)PYRENE EXPOSURE
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: The authors have addressed all 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: ORAL TOXICITY OF ARJUNOLIC ACID ON HEMATOLOGICAL, BIOCHEMICAL AND HISTOPATHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN FEMALE SPRAGUE DAWLEY RATS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Overall, the document is well-organized and well-structured. The references are adequate concerning the subject of the study. However, the study has some English grammar mistakes that must be corrected prior to its acceptance. Besides, several issues concerning the quality of the images, which did not achieve an optimal resolution, were observed.
It is also important to mention that in the whole manuscript, the authors used inappropriate words to describe the results (for instance, malicious, insignia, extraordinary, and exceptional). Please, in order to keep a high standard level of technical language, replace such words for a more scientific vocabulary.
Experimental design: The exact geographic coordinates in where the plant was collected must be informed; how the authors identified the obtained crystals as the AA? Which analytical procedures were applied to confirm such data?
The lack of alternative methodologies is a critical problem of the study! Did the authors consider testing the AA using in vitro techniques? There are several possibilities that could be employed to evaluate the potential toxicity of AA (hemolysis test, HET-CAM test, culture cells). The potential lacking of such data must be at least recognized by the authors;
Details regarding the expression of biochemistry and hematological results are misleading. Besides, the parameters used to perform the histopathological observation must be informed. The specific reasons for each staining should be mentioned. Please, check these points.
In the statistical analysis section, the assigned post-test and the data normality evaluations were not described. The authors should include these information.
Validity of the findings: In the discussion section, the authors exhaustedly repeated the results instead of correlating them with the scientific data. The real contribution and novelty of the study were not highlighted; Additionally, a paragraph regarding the limitations of the study must be included (the lack of alternative methodologies); In my opinion, more information regarding the pharmacological actions of AA should be included in order to reinforce its potential applications.
Additional comments: Abstract – the dosage administered in the animals is not clear; the statement is confusing, please, check; the experimental groups are also difficult to understand.
Avoid using the word sacrifice; minor English issues that must be verified;
Introduction – This section is well-organized and the objectives are clear; Minor English issues;
In the results section, the organs selected to histopathological evaluation are mentioned, which did not occur in the material and methods. Please, correct it.
The figure 1, 4, 5 and 7 did not achieve an optimal resolution and quality. It is difficult to understand and identify the main structural features of all tissues. Moreover, for ethical purposes, the authors must avoid using images of real animals (figure 1). Please, modify it.


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: ORAL TOXICITY OF ARJUNOLIC ACID ON HEMATOLOGICAL, BIOCHEMICAL AND HISTOPATHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN FEMALE SPRAGUE DAWLEY RATS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The text is original, but English needs to be corrected mainly due to the lack of articles preceding a few words such as line 161 “maximum”, line 212 “abnormal”, line 239 “Gradual”.

The content of figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 support the study proposal, but the low resolution of the images, as well as the size and quality of the structural indications,  make it impossible for the reader to identify the structures shown correctly. The figure quality needs to be increased, as well as increase the font of the letter of the statements.
Experimental design: The work fits the scope of the journal and the methods are well described.
Validity of the findings: Although the authors have described their findings, the lack of quality does not allow a good understanding of what happened. Therefore, the figure needs to be improved.
Additional comments: The figure quality needs to be improved, and the tables are part of supplementary material, requiring only the description and discussion of some relevant results.
Please describe what the author Naguib Salleh accomplished in the study.


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

Input:
Title: ORAL TOXICITY OF ARJUNOLIC ACID ON HEMATOLOGICAL, BIOCHEMICAL AND HISTOPATHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN FEMALE SPRAGUE DAWLEY RATS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The current version of the manuscript has superior quality; English issues were solved and the writing is clearer in comparison to the previous version of the document. The authors added essential data regarding the pharmacological applications of the phytochemical ingredient, which is the main purpose of the study. They also improved the resolution of the figures and properly identified the structures in the histological evaluation. Overall, the changes made in the document significantly contributed to improving the quality of the manuscript.
Experimental design: All the questions raised by me were properly answered. The exact geographic coordinates of the sample collection and the statistical evaluation were included.
Validity of the findings: The discussion section improved; it has a suitable scientific background, which supports the findings of the study.
Additional comments: Overall, the current version of the manuscript achieves the necessary quality level regarding the scientific content. The authors carefully attended to all my comments and improved the document. I have 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: ORAL TOXICITY OF ARJUNOLIC ACID ON HEMATOLOGICAL, BIOCHEMICAL AND HISTOPATHOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN FEMALE SPRAGUE DAWLEY RATS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The text has been improved, and previously found errors have been fixed.
Experimental design: The manuscript is within the scope of the journal, and the results are unpublished.
Validity of the findings: The quality of the images has been considerably improved, which allowed better identification of the histological observations.
Additional comments: The quality of the text and images has been improved, which allows a better analysis of the findings of this study.


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

Input:
Title: LYMPH NODE DETECTION IN MR LYMPHOGRAPHY: FALSE POSITIVE REDUCTION USING MULTI-VIEW CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is well-written, with the few typos/language issues noted below:

* p2.l82: t1-weighted -> T1-weighted
* p4.l152: "detected om the first"
* p5.l216: "a great deal of effort" -> "significant effort"
* p5.l237: " this didn’t probably affect performanc" -> "probably didn't affect"

The literature references and related discussion could be improved. First, it is not clear what is the performance of MRL in localizing lymph nodes, and what is the clinical practice to confirm the findings. For example, is biopsy needed for confirmation? What are the implications of the incorrect localization/missed findings? Second, it is not clear whether there are any other methods for automatic detection of lymph nodes in MRL? The introduction states "A modest number of studies have been published on the development of lymph node CAD systems, most of them using CT imaging rather than MR imaging" - are there any lymph node CAD studies using MR or not? If the answer is positive, it would be ideal to see a comparison of the proposed approach with the earlier alternatives.

The authors might want to extend their review of the related literature, and, for example, consider citing the following popular article and educating the reader a bit more about the capabilities and limitations of MRL:

Hövels, AM, et al. "The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis." Clinical radiology 63.4 (2008): 387-395.

The organization of the article is appropriate, figures and tables are relevant and professionally prepared.

It is not clear whether raw data shared meets the requirements of this journal. The authors share the data needed to generate the ROC plots, but not the data that was analyzed or the annotations of the image data. Journal guidelines do not appear to be specific in defining what "raw data" is in https://peerj.com/about/policies-and-procedures/#data-materials-sharing. Therefore, this aspect is deferred to the handling Editor.

Results and hypotheses stated and investigated are appropriate and self-contained.
Experimental design: The article is within the scope of the journal.

With the caveats discussed above, the research question is relevant and fills an important gap. Additional caveat to the study is the lack of clarity regarding the accuracy of the reader localization/annotation of the lymph nodes. The nodes used to train and evaluate the system were annotated by 2 readers in consensus. The performance of the system is therefore evaluated relative to the unknown reference performance of this consensus read. It would be helpful if authors discussed expected performance of the consensus read, especially since on several occasions authors note in Discussion that expert annotations could have missed some nodes. Is it possible that there are also false positives in the expert-produced annotations? This reviewer is not a clinical domain expert, perhaps those questions are obvious to the experts, but should also be clarified for more naive readers.

The description of the initial lymph node detection method (p2.l80) should be expanded. The current description is highly superficial. For example, it is not clear what it means to compute mean intensity feature of an input T1-weighted image for detection of lymph nodes. What is the meaning of the mean of all the pixels of an image? More details about the classifier are needed as well. The description should be complete for the reader to gain understanding of the approach without having to read earlier Debats et al. paper.

This reviewer does not have expertise in implementing or deploying deep learning methods. As such, it is difficult to assess the completeness of the level of detail accompanying the methods. Notably, the authors share the source code to enable replication of their results. That attachment however is lacking any documentation or user guide, and, as mentioned above, the source data used for training has not been shared. It is therefore difficult to establish whether the results could be replicated reliably, or what effort such replication endeavor would involve.

Other notes on data collection:
* inclusion criteria mention "Successful acquisition of VIBE, MEDIC, and FLASH image volumes", but there is no explanation of what this means in practice. How was "successful acquisition" defined? Were any imaging studies discarded based on image quality? If yes, how was that determination done? This point is important to evaluate the possible bias in data collection.
* no details are provided about the number of nodes annotated, number of nodes per patient, distribution of node volumes (and what percentage of the nodes were excluded due to small size)
Validity of the findings: The main question regarding the validity of this work appears to be in lacking details about the reference used to train and evaluate the system. Without knowing the performance characteristics of the readers, it is impossible to assess the absolute performance of the system, and as such - the actual possible impact of it on patient management.
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: LYMPH NODE DETECTION IN MR LYMPHOGRAPHY: FALSE POSITIVE REDUCTION USING MULTI-VIEW CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study, the authors aim to determine whether multi-view convolutional neural networks (CNN) can improve a fully automated lymph node detection system for pelvic MR Lymphography (MRL) images of prostate cancer patients. They extended the fully automated computer-aided detection (CAD) system, and compare the performance of the extended system and the original system.
Experimental design: A total of 240 patient data were collected retrospectively in the Radboud University Medical Center in Nijmegen, The Netherlands from January 2008 and April 2010. This study may be interesting for clinicians who are mainly interested in prostate cancer. However, the paper needs additional works, and some minor changes are recommended before considering the paper for publication.

Firstly, they should include the information in the manuscript according to the ethical approval and consent to participate if they are available.
Validity of the findings: Secondly, I also attached the Turnitin report for plagiarism check. The similarity index at the 9th page of the Turnitin Originality Report was 25%, and this value exceeded acceptable level range between 15%-20%. Especially authors’ previous paper (Debats, O. A., Meijs, M., Litjens, G. J. S., and Huisman, H. J. (2016). Automated multistructure atlas-assisted detection of lymph nodes using pelvic mr lymphography in prostate cancer patients. Medical Physics, 43(6):3132.) which was cited in the manuscript has the highest similarity with 13%.

Thirdly, the details of the methods are not available in the manuscript. In addition to this, it is not obvious why they prefer to use CNN method rather than other machine learning methods; or what is the reason to use 5-fold cross validation instead of 10-fold cross validation.

Lastly, authors should include the name of the statistical software used in the statistical analysis.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: LYMPH NODE DETECTION IN MR LYMPHOGRAPHY: FALSE POSITIVE REDUCTION USING MULTI-VIEW CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The language use is clear and professional.

Compared to the initial submission, the authors improved the rigor of reporting for the related work analysis, and provide significantly more details about the methodology, as suggested by the reviewers.
Experimental design: The experimental design follows the conventional approaches accepted in the community, and the experiments are well-justified. The manuscript is accompanied by the source code for the key components of the developed tools, which should allow the reader (who should be an expert in this field) to re-implement the methodology.
Validity of the findings: The original imaging datasets are not shared, which is (unfortunately) common in radiology, and in this situation is justifiable due to the lack of provisions allowing to share the dataset at the authors' institutions. I have nothing else to add in addition to the original review of this aspect.
Additional comments: The authors revised the paper appropriately to address the concerns expressed for the original submission.


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: LYMPH NODE DETECTION IN MR LYMPHOGRAPHY: FALSE POSITIVE REDUCTION USING MULTI-VIEW CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: My questions and concerns were addressed.


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: LONG-TERM STUDY OF BEHAVIORS OF TWO COHABITING SEA URCHIN SPECIES, MESOCENTROTUS NUDUS AND STRONGYLOCENTROTUS INTERMEDIUS, UNDER CONDITIONS OF HIGH FOOD QUANTITY AND PREDATION RISK IN SITU
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1. Basic Reporting
•	Writing could use some additional editing from someone whose first language is English; this is an editor's job, not a reviewer's.
•	The Results section is overly verbose with an over-abundance of descriptive observations.
Experimental design: 2. Experimental design
•	The experimental design of this study is frankly a mess.  Its structure is difficult to discern, but appears to be an intertwined collection of observations of urchin behavior at 4- 5 sites under varying natural conditions, interspersed with periodic intrusions of manipulations (adding food, adding predator or crushed conspecific cues, etc.).  Thus, the design lacks structure making analysis of the data a problem. Tables 1 and 2 suggest that nearly all of the data were analyzed with simple 2-sample t-tests or their non-parametric equivalent.  However, these observations are not independent of one another and therefore the use of multiple t-tests on the same study is inappropriate and greatly inflates the probability of a type 1 error (i.e., concluding a significant difference when none exists).  In reality, there seem to be 4 or 5 independent observational periods - those are represented by the observations made at the separate locations.  Therefore, each of those should be considered a replicate.  One analysis approach would be to use a general linear model to examine the effect of different time periods elapsed since certain events (kelp additions, storms, predators added, conspecifics crushed) on the various response variables measured.
•
•	Nighttime recordings were made under illumination of a "lantern"; that term in English usually refers to  a very specific type of camping light - probably not what these authors used.  I'm assuming they used an underwater light of some type and they mention an "impulse duration of 1 s", so I'm guessing its a flash strobe.  What do the authors know about the response of urchins to flashes of light at night from a light source of this particular wavelength range and intensity?  They don't have image forming eyes, but they do have photosensors and this type of night-time disturbance could potentially be a problem.
Validity of the findings: 3. Validity of the findings
•	The results as currently presented can not be trusted because the statistical analyses are incorrect given the convoluted experimental design.
Additional comments: 4. General comments
•	In general, the study has some interesting aspects - particularly the long term nature of the observations which allows assessment of how long certain attractive/alarm cues persist.  Doing the study in the field using the video technology is also innovative.  But the overall subject matter (sea urchin behavior) is likely to be interesting to only a small audience, so the manuscript is perhaps better suited to a more specialized journal (e.g., Journal of Shellfish Research).  Unfortunately, the work as it now stands is not publishable because the experimental design is poorly conceived and the statistical analyses of the resultant data completely inadequate.  The experimental design issues can not be fixed unless the whole study were conducted again.  But a reanalysis of the data in line more with what I suggest can salvage the study to some extent.


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: LONG-TERM STUDY OF BEHAVIORS OF TWO COHABITING SEA URCHIN SPECIES, MESOCENTROTUS NUDUS AND STRONGYLOCENTROTUS INTERMEDIUS, UNDER CONDITIONS OF HIGH FOOD QUANTITY AND PREDATION RISK IN SITU
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: This was a very interesting manuscript and I commend the authors for taking the time to collect all this novel video data in the field, and for the many hours it took to analyze the data.

Below are a number of notes on the Figures which I believe would improve the clarity of the results and the overall readability of the manuscript. They are listed by line number below. Other small wording and editing suggestions are listed in the General Comments Section below.

Some notes on the Figures and Tables Presented:
•	Overall I think the figures were well done and fully supported the results presented and the conclusions made.
•	I think a better use of colour should be made across all the figures. As there are many figures in this manuscript, and some are very complicated, I think it would be very helpful if all the results relating to one urchin species was always in one colour, and all the results relating to the other was in a different colour. This way it will be easier to read the figures as in every one the urchin species will have its distinct colour.
o	Figure 1 – Colour for urchin species would be very helpful here (rather than the black and white) as it will be easier to tell apart the urchin patterns. Also on the other figures you used colour for the symbols (triangles, etc), that would be helpful in this figure.
o	Figure 2 – The three different colours is distracting. I think if you used one colour for A (one urchin species) and another for B, it would be a lot clearer. Labels could just be used on the x axis instead of the three colours.
o	Figure 2 – Why is during the storm in panel A “bc”? As the other two are “a” shouldn’t it just be “b”?
o	Figure 4 – Why are relative numbers of urchins plotted instead of actual numbers? Why is a trendline not drawn through the data and tested for fit (regression)?
o	Figure 6 - Why are relative numbers of urchins plotted instead of actual numbers? Why is a trendline not drawn through the data and tested for fit (regression)? The x axis should be labeled and the colours removed. All points should be in the colour for M. nudus to match all other figures.
o	Figure 10 – Why does this Figure not include a panel B (Response to crushed M. nudus) to match Figures 8 and 9?
Experimental design: Generally, the methods for the study are well described, which is excellent considering the number of different analyses within the manuscript. Below are a number of questions and changes which I believe would improve the clarity of the methods and the overall readability of the manuscript. They are listed by line number below. Small wording and editing suggestions are listed in the General Comments Section below.

•	Line 119 – 129 – This paragraph is focused on methods, and I think the manuscript would read better if this was moved from the end of the introduction to the first section of the methods section. The intro would then end at Line 118, which would work well. The paragraph would fit well at the current Line 162.
•	Line 137 – 141 – Was there is a reason for the different substrate types and depths between the two bays? Or is it just characteristic of each bay?
•	Line 135 – Is there any tidal influence on water depth within these two bays?
•	Line 142 – 144 – The two urchin species are already described in the intro. This first sentence can be removed and the urchin species names could just be added into the second sentence.
•	Line 145 – 147 – Why was this completed? Was it to balance the density of the species in the study areas?
•	Line 154 – How high were the frames?
•	Line 199 – I know it is far too late now, but why were M. nudus crushed to simulate predator attack, but S. intermedius were not crushed?
•	Line 206 – is the word “sonde” correct? I have not heard of this term
•	Line 207 – “every” should be added so it reads “….measured the sea level every 10 min…”
•	Line 211 – How were the 10 sea urchins selected if there were more than 10 in the frame? Randomly?
•	Line 275 – I really enjoy the Procedural Controls section. Great work!
Validity of the findings: Below are a few questions about the results you present:
•	Line 402 – You describe that after the crushed urchins experiment it took a while (7-19 days) before urchins returned. Was the food source continually changed over this time period, or was it left untouched? Could the absence of food, or disturbance during food changing have influenced this time to return?
•	Line 438 – What does this statement refer to. It is unclear.
•	Line 440 – 441 – You mention that there was a significant linear trend in the data, why was a trendline not shown on the corresponding figure?
There were a couple statements that were made that I believe are a bit too far reaching for the data presented.
•	Line 533 – While an interesting statement about the  prevention of disease, I think it is a bit of a leap from the study results to this statement and should be removed or downplayed.
•	Line 634 – 638 – While interesting, I think this paragraph, particularly the last sentence is a very strong statement based on the limited data presented in this manuscript. “…are likely more stable than all known chemical cues emitted by other aquatic animals”, this is a very wide reaching statement and I believe should be removed or downplayed quite a lot. This comes up in the conclusion again, and I think it should be removed from there. While perhaps an interesting discussion point (making the suggestion), it certainly wasn’t a major finding of this study in my opinion, as it is not based on a strong amount of evidence.
Additional comments: Abstract
•	The second sentence of the results paragraph includes two separate statements and should be split into two sentences. I think “…speed and distance travelled whereas S. intermedius…” would read better as “… speed and distance travelled. Furthermore, S. intermedius....”
•	The sentence in the results paragraph where the alarm response is noted “…90 and 20 h for starfish attacks….” I assume this is 90 h and 20 h? It should be clarified.
	Introduction
•	Line 64/65 – A reference to support this statement, or some additional wording around where the poisonous species reside, might be helpful.
•	Line 71 – Change “caused” to “can cause”
•	Line 72 – I suggest changing the wording of the first item in this list to match the others. It would then read “ ‘cryptic behavior’, i.e. hiding in a crack or hole”. The other two behaviors should then also have single quotes around them to match ‘associative behavior’ and ‘dispersion behavior’
•	Line 75 – “vice versa” can be removed
•	Line 80 – “may not present” I think would read better as “these behaviors may not occur”
•	Line 82 – 85 – This sentence is confusing to read and should be reworded or split into two sentences in order to be clearer to the reader. The point you are making is very good, it is just difficult to get there at the moment.

Methods
•	Line 190 – remove “during”
Results
•	Line 310 – 311 – The names and dates after the species names should be in brackets in order to match the style in the rest of the manuscript. Same with Lines 380 – 381.
•	Line 321 – “During approximately the day after the storm” does not read well.
•	Line 324 – This entire sentence can be removed as it does not add any information into the manuscript. “They performed moves of different length interrupted by stops of different duration”.
•	Line 328 – This sentence can be removed as it doesn’t add in new information, just the opposite information from the sentence above.
•	Line 329 – “As well” should be changed to “whereas”
•	Line 332 – “length of one move” should be changed to “step length” for clarity.
•	Line 336 – Should this read as “The average locomotion speeds during storm conditions were…..”?
•	Line 439 – “not such obvious” should be changed to “not very obvious”
Discussion
•	Line 473 – Add “in the field” after video recording.
•	Line 486 – Should read as “…resulting in higher distances traversed”
•	Line 488 – Wording suggestion – “….S. intermedius would be able to average…”
•	Line 697 - The sentence where the alarm response is noted “…90 and 20 h for starfish attacks….” I assume this is 90 h and 20 h? It should be clarified.


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

Input:
Title: LONG-TERM STUDY OF BEHAVIORS OF TWO COHABITING SEA URCHIN SPECIES, MESOCENTROTUS NUDUS AND STRONGYLOCENTROTUS INTERMEDIUS, UNDER CONDITIONS OF HIGH FOOD QUANTITY AND PREDATION RISK IN SITU
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The improvements that you made in the revision of the MS were great and improved how easy it was to follow the story throughout the MS and tables and figures.
Experimental design: The improvements that you made in the revision of the MS were great and improved how easy it was to follow the story throughout the MS and tables and figures.
Validity of the findings: The improvements that you made in the revision of the MS were great and I think the conclusions you now make are all fully supported by the data you present and add novel information to the literature.
Additional comments: Great work on the revision of the MS. I think this was a great study and should be published as is.


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: MUNIDOPSIS SPECIES (CRUSTACEA: DECAPODA: MUNIDOPSIDAE) FROM CARCASS FALLS IN WEIJIA GUYOT, WEST PACIFIC, WITH RECOGNITION OF A NEW SPECIES BASED ON INTEGRATIVE TAXONOMY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Straight forward paper, the authors present two species from an interesting environment and provide valid argument that one of them is new, using an integrative approach. well done.
Experimental design: I included a question as to what was actually placed on the ocean floor. You say bones, but I was curious to learn more. Can you direct the reader to a voyage report perhaps?
Validity of the findings: The authors present good illustrations and discussions of the species they discovered. I did suggest to delete the comment for the new species habitat, that it is suspected to also live on hydrothermal vents since there is currently little evidence to support this.
It might be useful to include a table of genetic distances in addition to a tree, but you do present a selection of these in the discussion.
Additional comments: I look forward to seeing it in print.


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: MUNIDOPSIS SPECIES (CRUSTACEA: DECAPODA: MUNIDOPSIDAE) FROM CARCASS FALLS IN WEIJIA GUYOT, WEST PACIFIC, WITH RECOGNITION OF A NEW SPECIES BASED ON INTEGRATIVE TAXONOMY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript describes a new species of squat lobster of the genus Munidopsis and the occurrence of another rare species in the carcass fall of the western Pacific. The text is correct and the illustrations are adequate. The references, as well as the comparisons with other species is adequate. I have no problemas to accept the ms for publication after a few suggestions.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: The findings are adequate. My minor comments are the following:
1. Line 45. Can you add a reference? e.g. Baba et al., 2008
2. Line 75. " In the present paper"
3. Line 93. Add affiliation of this colleague.
4. Line 176. Eye movable or fixed?
5. Line 217. Frontal margin oblique?
6. Line 273. Carpi. Dorsal or external surface?
7. Line 277. P4 propodus is slightly shorter than P2 and P3.
8. Line 283. Include depth.
9. Lines 305 and 310. and also different number of plates in the telson.
10. Discussion. Have you got any explanation of these low differences among species?
Additional comments: see above


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

Input:
Title: THE FIRST NORTH AMERICAN PROPTERODON (HYAENODONTA: HYAENODONTIDAE), A NEW SPECIES FROM THE LATE UINTAN OF UTAH
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This paper is a valuable contribution to taxonomic, geographic, and temporal areas that needs more work.  The author does well in his review of the literature and placing his work within the broader context of creodont evolution (a notoriously messy area of mammalian paleontology...).  The author has an extensive background in the area, and he displays it in the thoroughness of his work. Only a few small revisions are required to make the paper ready for publication.
Experimental design: The research is relevant and meaningful, as outlined above.
Validity of the findings: There certainly was lots of exchange between North America and Eurasia throughout the Eocene and this paper adds another link between the continents.
Additional comments: A few small changes should be made before publication:
Line 42 - Unclear why there are two orphaned dashes in this line...
Line 52 - I believe you mean _Oxyaenodon_ not _Oxyaenoides_.  Also, although you refer to _Sinopa_, I'm not sure that's a generally accepted synonymy of _Proviverra longipes_ (at least I couldn't find a reference to it).  I'm not sure if a reference is needed here, or if you should just check on that.
Line 97 - add 'taxonomic' to read 'To test the taxonomic affinities...
Line 101 (and other places, including References) - The Borths & Stevens paper on _Simbakubwa_ is out, so replace with 2019.
Line 101 - missing a period after Rana et al.
Line 113 - remove 'was placed' and 'ensure'
Lines 125-126 - What do you mean by 'accompanying models' here?  Data sets?
Line 127 - change 'base' to 'be based'
Line 129 - change 'used' to 'defined'
Line 141 - What do you mean by 'successional status' here?  Ownership?  Taxonomy?
Line 195 - Change 'for a series of' to 'based on'
Line 262 - change to read, '...cingulid that extends distally, even with the carnassial notch...'
Line 454 - change first 'of' to 'in'
References - Hooker 1989 is not cited in the paper.
Figure 1 - Seems like a lot of wasted space in this figure.  Could you put an inset showing the position of Leota Quarry within the Uinta Basin?
Figure 3 - Maybe at the range of _Apataleurus kayi_ here since you talk about the genus.
Figure 4 - Could the inset of the occlusal view of the teeth be enlarged (with an appropriate scale bar)?
Figure 6 - Can you add labels indicating the clades you mention in the text: Limnocyoninae, Hyaenodontinae, Proviverrinae, Indohyaenodontinae, Hyainailourinae, Apterodontinae, Teratodontinae?