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: DIFFERENT ANALYSIS STRATEGIES OF 16S RRNA GENE DATA FROM RODENT STUDIES GENERATE CONTRASTING VIEWS OF GUT BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH DIET, HEALTH AND OBESITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is written in clear, unambiguous, and technically correct language. The introduction and background revealed the problem of reproducibility in microbiome studies and main factors that may have impact on the result of such investigations.
The shown results are sufficient to support the conclusions made by the authors.
The supplied raw data are sufficient and are referenced in acceptable form. Figures are relevant, well labelled and described.
Experimental design: The methods are described with sufficient detail and information to replicate. And they are enough for the conclusions made.
Unfortunately authors ignored the suggestion to use more methods to search for clusters besides PCoA to see whether received clusters are stable (I’ve suggested to use UMAP  (McInnes et al., 2018). As well as the suggestion to inspect only mouse samples on the PCoA in order to find more clusters masked by strong impact of the species specificity.

McInnes L, Healy J, Saul N, Grossberger L. 2018. UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection. Journal of Open Source Software. 3:861. DOI:10.21105/joss.00861.
Validity of the findings: All the underlying data have been provided but I suggest to use not only PCoA but also UMAP for the patterns’ search to confirm the stability of the result.The aim of the study to assess the impact of different analysis strategies and several other factors on the resulting microbiome composition is achieved. The conclusions are well stated, and they are connected with the investigated question.
Additional comments: Most of the comments were taken into account (the ignored suggestions were named above) and the questions raised were answered.


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: DIFFERENT ANALYSIS STRATEGIES OF 16S RRNA GENE DATA FROM RODENT STUDIES GENERATE CONTRASTING VIEWS OF GUT BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH DIET, HEALTH AND OBESITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Authors gave answers to all comments and i suppose that the manuscript can be published now.


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: DIFFERENT ANALYSIS STRATEGIES OF 16S RRNA GENE DATA FROM RODENT STUDIES GENERATE CONTRASTING VIEWS OF GUT BACTERIAL COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH DIET, HEALTH AND OBESITY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Authors improved parts of manuscript that required clarifications. The language is clear and professional. Article is structured in appropriate way for publication. The necessary references and supplementary raw data are included. The manuscript is ready for publishing although I have one small suggestion (see General comments).
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: On Figure 2F among treatments there are “Lean” and “Obese”. It looks confusing. Although it could be assumed that these categories represent lean and obese mice in control groups I suggest to add explicit explanation to the description of the figure.


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: DIVERSITY OF EDIBLE INSECTS IN A NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SITE OF INDIA: ENTOMOPHAGY ATTITUDES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY IN THE REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The language used is clear and unambiguous. The discussion was conveyed appropriately.
The literature review was sufficient. However, a few related studies could have been reviewed.
The structure is methodologically appropriate. The biochemical analysis added to the article’s sheen.
Figures are good. However, figures 10-16 seem unnecessary. These are already been represented in figure 17.
Raw data is robust and sufficient.
The biochemical analysis could have been restricted. Discussing diversity is more than enough.
Findings are significant and have good potential in defining the current edible insect scenario in Asia.
Experimental design: Research questions are appropriately defined.
Study area: Figure 1 is not mentioned. It should be mentioned.
Line 175: Table/diagram of the market price of some insects could be inserted (if possible)
Line
Lines 182-184: These could be removed.
Lines 185-186: The name of chemical compounds should be given.
The methodology otherwise is good. Figure 2 could be improved (if felt necessary).
Validity of the findings: The findings are worthwhile as they represent an area that has not been discussed before, mainly in the context of South Asia.

In the discussion part, the following studies could be cited:
Arya, M. K., & Verma, A. (2020). An Insight Into the Butterflies (Lepidoptera, Papilionoidea) Associated With Protected Area Network of Uttarakhand, Western Himalaya. In Current State and Future Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity (pp. 154-178). IGI Global.
Guadalquiver, D. M., Nuñeza, O. M., & Dupo, A. L. (2019). Species Diversity of Lepidoptera in Mimbilisan Protected Landscape, Misamis Oriental, Philippines. Entomology and Applied Science Letters, 6(3), 33-47.
Dewan, S., Chettri, I. K., Sharma, K., & Acharya, B. K. (2019). Kitam Bird Sanctuary, the only low elevation protected area of Sikkim: A conservation hotspot for butterflies in the Eastern Himalaya. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology, 22(2), 575-583.\
Hagstrum, D. W., & Phillips, T. W. (2017). Evolution of stored-product entomology: protecting the world food supply. Annual review of entomology, 62, 379-397.

Supporting data is sound and appropriate. Figures are self-explanatory and support the conclusions.

Conclusions are appropriately stated. Limitations and future research prospects may be stated in the conclusion.
Additional comments: Overall, the study is an interesting one as it deals with lesser known facts of third world entomology. It could have been expanded to cover a broader perspective. However, the conclusions could be made clearer to reflect the findings. The mentioned minor revisions may be done.


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: DIVERSITY OF EDIBLE INSECTS IN A NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SITE OF INDIA: ENTOMOPHAGY ATTITUDES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY IN THE REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Needs English revision.
Text needs to be condensed; needs to be much more succinct.
Platitudes need to be avoided, repetitiveness needs to be reduced.
Important references are missing.
Figures are deficient,
Tables unclear without legends and units mentioned.
Methods re chemical analyses need to be described ( at the momentwhaat is written there is totally unacceptable!)

This ms needs a very, very MAJOR revision. It does, however, have potential and could be a useful contribution if revised adequately.
Experimental design: Major revision  (especially regarding Chemical Analyses) is essential !
Validity of the findings: Avoid platitudes and follow my suggestions given in the Comments to the Authors
Additional comments: Ref Report 299

Entomophagy, edible insect diversity, and desirability of food security in a natural World Heritage Site of southern Asia
By Arup Kumar Hazarika et al.

This is a potentially interesting and comprehensive study and the authors ought to be encouraged to re-submit their work following a thorough revision. Although generally quite well written, there are several problems with this manuscript. In places it is very verbose and the text must be condensed; the methodology (especially with regard to the chemical analyses) is deficient; some important earlier publications have been missed; legends to tables and figures are either absent or deficient; some figures are deficient.
Title: to mention “…a Natural World Heritage Site of Southern Asia” is far too vague. Where in southern Asia?  Southern Asia covers a huge area. Even later in the description of the study area, no information about where this “natural World Heritage Site” is located  is given.  Is it in Assam? Part of it in Bhutan? If so, that should be added. In Fig. 1 there should be a map between that overview map of India and that detailed view of the heritage site. The reader MUST have a map of the part of Assam (if the heritage site is in Assam) that shows the area.  Also, maps must have a scale (x km).
The mentioning of desirability of food security in a Natural World Heritage Site is somewhat odd: food security is desirable only in the World Heritage site? Elsewhere it is not desirable?
Abstract:
Line 24: write “Insects not only play a significant role in the ecological processes of Nature, but since pre-historic times they have also formed a part of the human diet. With a still growing…”
Line 36: Isoptera have for several years now not been treated as a separate order of insects any more, but are included in the order of Blattodea.
Line 38: write “Biochemical analyses” (plural of analysis is analyses!). Further, what does “these” refer to in ‘these insects’ (no specific insets have been mentioned).
Line39/40: delete the lines “Further, the economic significance….It was observed that”  and start “To manage insects…advantages.”

Introduction:
Line 49: the reference Yi etal. 2012 is misleading as Yi et al have not researched insect nutrients. There is no need for a reference at all with regard to the statement made on line 49.
L. 54: Likewise, Van Huis 2013 has never studied the diets of prehistoric humans and the reference this reference is simply wrong and either has to be removed or replaced by an appropriate reference.
Lines 60-62: the authors had better write: “Given the shortfalls of the ‘green revolution’ and high risk of food insecurity in developing and underdeveloped nations, the use of insects as a potential source of food for the burgeoning human population had been advocated by Meyer-Rochow (1975), a suggestion that has been gaining interest among researchers, entrepreneurs and policy makers worldwide ever since.”
Line 63: replace “in most Asian…” with “ in some Asian…”
Line 64: write “Weaver ants (Oecophylla smaragdina), whose chemical composition and value as a human food item has been assessed by Chakravorty et al. (2016), are widespread …”
L67: Delete “Besides” and start “In Thailand over…”
L70, 71, 72: Style !  What do the words “their cultural…”,  “But they…”, “They are…” refer to?
L73/74: provide scientific name for the ‘red ants’ and clarify “…their eggs”.  Almost certainly NOT eggs (the eggs are miniscule, more likely their pupae!)
L76/78: Condense and make one sentence. Drop Borgohain et al. 2014 ,as it is the wrong reference.
L79/80: the  reference to “various ethnic tribes” is too vague. There are approx. 50 ethnic groups in Arunachal!  Better use Chakravorty et al. 2013 !
L83: write “Odonata were consumed…”
L86: start the paragraph with “Scientific reports…”
L89/90: Why mention aquatic beetles in Latin America and Africa? Macadam & Stockan 2017 is good reference, but why not cite Indian research on edible beetles like Shantibala T, Lokeshwari RK, Debaraj H 2014  Nutritional and antinutritional composition of five species of aquatic edible insects consumed in Manipur. J. Insect Sci. 14 (4), 1-10
Or: Ayekpam, N. Singh NI, Singh TK 2014 Edible and medicinal insects of Manipur. Ind. J. Entomology 76 (3), 256-259
Or Asian research on edible beetles: Ümit İncekara and Hasan Türkez 2009. THE GENOTOXIC EFFECTS OF SOME EDIBLE INSECTS ON HUMAN WHOLE BLOOD CULTURES.Mun. Ent. Zool. Vol. 4, (2), 531-535 (this article deals with 3 species of edible aquatic beetles (Hydrophilus, Cybister and Dytiscus)
Or: Jäch MA 2003 Fried water beetles Cantonese style. Am. Entomol. 49, 134-137.
L99: Write “Information on the nutrient composition (macro- and micronutrients) of the edible insets species was used to explore …”
L101: Write “In short, the aims of this study have been to determine the degree to which the ethnic people use insects in their diet and which species they consume. Recording seasonal abundance and availability of edible species as well as evaluating the role that entomophagy could possibly play as a measure of food security in the region, were further aspects of this study.”

Materials and Methods
Describe clearly where the national park is located. Add a proper map (with scale)
L124:  “these tribes…”?  Which? Has Rabha 2016 and have Das & Hazarika 2019 studied all of them? They (who?) really rear insects???  Which species (there are several lakh of insect species in India?

Sampling: more details are required. Describe the equipment used for sampling. How often were traps emptied? Who was involved in the sampling?
Figure 2 does not give ANY information on traps, the frequency that collecting  took place, people involved, whether collecting occurred during the day or nighttime hours, if light traps were used (and if not why not), what kinds of traps for aquatic insects were used?

L140-146:  approximately what were the total areas in sqkm that the 4 different habitat types covered?

L172: “…once per season….and twice during the whole survey duration” is not clear.  Explain what seasons you distinguish in that area (perhaps spring, summer, autumn, winter? Or maybe monsoon and pre-monsoon; rainy and dry season?), but which months are involved. The project was a one-year project:  = 4 seasons?  But “twice visited per season”?  Not clear “during the survey duration”, but ”once”?

More information on the respondents is required: how were they chosen? Men/women children? Ages involved and if possible some background of the respondents (literate? Farmers? Housewives?)

L180-195: This is one of the least satisfactory parts of the manuscript. You used fresh or dried insets? How were they dried? Values given are per wet weight or dry weight.  You write that for this study “we chose insect species of the order Coleoptera” but Table 5 lists species belonging to all kinds of insect orders!
You need to provide proper references for standard methods, e.g. Bragdon’s method, etc. It sounds as if for protein analysis the Lowry method was used. But there is a chance for overestimation as some flavonoids, polyphenols also contribute in the development of the colour. The Micro-Kjeldahl process is superior and more reliable to estimate N and then protein.
What about the chloroform-methanol solution (ratio, solvent???). What about the Nelson method: provide reference or describe then method in detail.
Tables, e.g.  5: nutrient composition, what are the units? How to prepare the sample for analysis, e.g., then sampling process?
Which method(s) was (were) followed to determine omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids? What is the unit? Hpw were mineral compositions determined?  Where are the statistics ? How many replicates were done?

You should look at Sampat Ghosh’s detailed descriptions of the methodology to see what info is required:
Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 19 (2016) 487–495 “Nutritional value and chemical composition of larvae, pupae, and adults of worker honey bee, Apis mellifera ligustica as a sustainable food source”
Sampat Ghosh, Chuleui Jung, Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow
Materials and methods
Sample collection and preparation
Specimens of A. mellifera ligustica were collected from the experimental apiary of Andong National University (36°34′N; 128°43′E) during June, 2015. The movable frame combs were taken to the insect lab
and the bee brood (consisting of 4th and 5th instar larvae prior to cell capping as well as pupae 2–5 days after cell capping) was removed from the comb. Adults were collected from the inside of the hive during
the day and consisted almost entirely of ‘house-workers’ (not more than 3 weeks old after emergence) that had not been actively foraging outside. The developmental stages i.e. larvae, pupae and adults, were separated in the laboratory, wings of the adults were removed, then oven-dried, ground to powder and prepared as dry matter (DM) for further analysis. All the solvents and chemicals used in the study were of analytical grade.
Proximate analyses
Proximate compositions, i.e. moisture content, crude protein, crude fat, crude fibre, ash and nitrogen free extract (NFE) were estimated following standard methods recommended by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 1990). Moisture percentage was calculated by drying the sample in an oven at 100 °C for 2 h. The dried sample was put into desiccators and allowed to cool and reweighed. The process was repeated until constant weight was obtained. Crude protein was determined by the Kjeldahl method and total protein content was calculated as the amount of total N determined
multiplied by nitrogen-to-protein conversion factor of 6.25. Fat percentage was calculated by drying fats after extraction in a Soxhlet using Diethyl ether. Ash percentage was calculated by combusting the samples in silica crucible placed in a muffle furnace.
The percentage of carbohydrate was determined by subtracting all of the components (crude protein, crude lipid and ash) from 100. The calorific value (kcal/100 g) was computed by multiplying the
factors for carbohydrate and protein by 4 each and that of fat by 9 and then taking the sum of the products. All of the analyses were performed in triplicate and expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Amino acid analysis
Amino acid composition was determined by Sykam Amino Acid analyser S433 (Sykam GmbH,Germany) following the standard method of AOAC (1990). The ground samples were hydrolyzed in 6 N HCl
for 24 h at 110 °C under nitrogen atmosphere and then concentrated with rota-evaporator. The concentrated samples were reconstituted with sample dilution buffer supplied by the manufacturer (0.12 N, pH 2.20). The hydrolyzed samples were analysed for amino acid composition. The operating condition of the amino acid analyser was as the following: Instrument Amino acid analyser (Sykam GmbH, Germany) Column LCA K07/Li (PEEK — column 4.6 × 150 mm), Application Physiological Detector Photometer (570 nm, 440 nm), Detection principle Ninhydrin reaction, Inert gas N2.
The amino acid score was calculated based on FAO/WHO/UNU (2007).
Fatty acid analysis
Fatty acid composition was analysed by gas chromatography flame ionization detection (GC-14B, Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan), following the standard method of the Korean Food Standard Codex (2010). The
samples were derivatised into fatty methyl esters (FAMEs) following the method described by Lepage and Roy (1986). Identification and quantification of FAMEswere accomplished by comparing the retention times of peaks with those of pure standards purchased from Sigma and analysed under the same conditions. The results were expressed as a percentage of individual fatty acids in the lipid fraction. The operating condition of GC for fatty acid analysis was as the following:
Instrument Gas Chromatography (GC-14B, Shimazdu) Column SP-2560, Detector Flame Ionization detector (FID), Carrier gas N2, 300 KPa, Initial temperature 170 °C, Initial time 0 min, Programme rate 1 °C/min, Final temperature 205 °C, Final time 5 min, Split ratio 100:1.
Minerals analyses
Minerals were analysed following the standard method of the Korean Food Standard Codex (2010). The dried powder samples were digested with nitric and hydrochloric acid (1:3) at 200 °C for 30 min.
Each sample was filtered using Whatman filter paper (0.45 μm) and stored in washed glass vials before analysis. Minerals were analysed by inductively-coupled plasma-optical emission spectrophotometer
(ICP-OES 720 series Agilent).

Or look at:
Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 20 (2017) 686–694
Nutritional composition of five commercial edible insects in South Korea
Sampat Ghosha, So-Min Leeb, Chuleui Jungb, V.B. Meyer-Rochow

Results   (FIGURS AND TABLES):
The Tables 1 -4 are very good and  detailed. Congratulation, well done!
BUT: why is there no Oecophylla smaragdina Table 2 ?
For Table 4 you need to explain in a legend: Occurrence,  FBH ,OFH, Abundance and Relative Abundance.
Figures 1, 2, and 3 need to be improved!
Fig. 3 looks nice, but you have to give the scientific names of the insects you depict in the figure !
Fig. 4 is OK.
Fig. 5 is terrible: What is the y-axis (number of peopåle interviewed, percentage of population?)  What is the x-axis (distance in km?). How can the surface of the data be ‘curved’ if you have separate data points . Explain.
Fig. 6: shows men or women?
Figures 7 and 8: good
Figures  9 – 17: inadequate.  What is the unit for the data? Based on dry or wet weight?  You need to give the scientific names of the insects studied. Based on what quantities (numbers of insects, weight used for analysis; how many replicates?)

L210: “The order Hemiptera….”   “The order Coleoptera…)
L212: “A total of 9,213 edible insects…
L213: …the field observation.”
L220: “Species of the order…”
L226: “…the year, but in the winter they were less abundant than during the pre-monsoon and monsoon season.”  Which months is winter?

L231: This paper should be cited:
Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 17 (2014) 407–415
Nutritional composition of Chondracris rosea and Brachytrupes orientalis:
“Two common insects used as food by tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, India”
Jharna Chakravorty, Sampat Ghosh, Chuleui Jung, V.B. Meyer-Rochow

Discussion
L271- 330: This ecological section is useful and interesting and should be retained, even though it is not directly (but certainly indirectly) related to edible insects of the region.
L277: scientific names of insects should be italicized.
L296: “This adverse finding…”
L330-334: “For instance,….their lives”  should be deleted
L340: “…of the Bodos…”
L346: write “…is from the order Orthoptera, which comprise 8 species of which 7 are short-horned …”
Or you can write “…, Orthoptera, which contain 8 species…”
L348-353: Delete “Notably, Assam…and so on.”
L358: “…are collected (cf., Meyer-Rochow 2017). This indicates…”
L362: “…rather than an…”
L369: Vaccaro et al. (2019): reference  is incomplete!
Add: “…observation of Vaccaro et al. (2019), but does not agree with the study by Ghosh et al. (2020), carried out in Ethiopia.  (Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2020, 6 (1), 59-64).
L376: wrong general statement: not ALL insets contain minimal amounts of carbohydrates. No, some like bees, honeypot ants etc are VERY rich in carbohydrates!
L377: How can you cite a 2012 paper and then write that the results were “further verified” by a 2006 paper!!!  The citations on nutrients L377, L379, should be replaced by newer and more reliable ones.
L384: write “…insects should potentially be able to supplement the diet of livestock.”
L391/2: Payne et al 2016 noted that there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE (!) in the nutritional qualities between insects and conventional protein food sources like pork, beef and poultry! Get this right, please.
L396: benefits: like what?
L405408: Delete “For instance….areas.”
L420: “…ladybird beetles..,”
L425: yes, here you mention it “rich in protein and carbohydrates” but earlier on Line 376 you wrote  carbohydrates were minimal!
L434: Delete “be”
L436: which larvae? And who found that (reference please)
L 440: “…higher than that of the adult…”
L445 – 458: Delete the whole paragraph.
L467: you should add after “security “…like learning from other countries like, for instance, South Korea (Meyer-Rochow V.B., Ghosh, S., Jung, C 2019 Farming of insects for food and feed in South Korea: tradition and innovation. Berliner und Münchener Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 131 (5/6), 236-244.
L469: Write “Our study shows that edible insects are of considerable nutritional value and expanding their acceptability as human food can be expected to improve the nutritional status of people and possible reduce their costs.
L472: you mean ‘six’, but you need a reference to back up that statement!
L478:”Certain insects…” ?  Which?  Silkworms, honey bees, and as of late bumble bees and wasps. Is Akerele et al 2018 a correct reference?
L480: how can you leave out Korea with hundreds of years of insect cultures!
L482: Specht et al. 2019: the title is missing in the references!
L486: the statement “ Insect diversity…. 2018).”  Is it relevant for Assam and the Heritage Site?
L488: “These activities…” (WHICH?)   “…improving their diets… (WHOSE?) and their livelihoods (WHOSE?)
In the 4 lines 486-489 you use the word  “also” three times
Conclusion: Make sure you do not simply repeat what is already in the Abstract.
L513: why ‘may be concluded’?  You are doubting your own results?
L516: whose ‘status’?
L518: why ‘also’. Delete ‘immense’. We have NO IDEA if the economic advantages will be or “are immense”.
Rewrite this whole Conclusion in one short paragraph.  Go over the entire paper and see if you can streamline and condense the text!  Avoid platitudinous statements.


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: DIVERSITY OF EDIBLE INSECTS IN A NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SITE OF INDIA: ENTOMOPHAGY ATTITUDES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY IN THE REGION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In general, the experiments are properly planned and executed but the data presentation is extremely poor with many figures duplicating the findings and the entire manuscript is not straightforward. There are several instances in entire manuscript where English grammar and syntax needs great improvement and several sentences are very difficult to follow.  Overall, the writing needs more work. For details, please see specific comments below.
Experimental design: The Materials and Methods section in this paper would require additional details for clarity. It is quite shallow and does not clearly state out the research design. I think the whole M &M section needs to be rephrased in simple and proper English grammar. It is a bit difficult to follow because of so many errors.
Validity of the findings: The result section is also poorly structured and not straight forward to follow as it lacks coherence in interpretation of findings because of lots of grammatical errors. This section should also be carefully rewritten with focus on key findings.
Additional comments: TITLE PAGE:
The title of the paper needs to be carefully revised because it is not very clear and does represent the context of the paper. The title too wordy. A possible title could be “Composition and nutritional profile of edible insects in the Manas National Park, India: Implications for food security in the region”
This paper also lacks a running heading, which is one of the key instructions to authors

ABSTRACT:
The abstract is too wordy and does not state the problem and the aim of the study clearly. The results should be presented in a systematic fashion and the authors should concentrate on trends while maintaining the number of word counts per the journal format (Background, Methods, Results and Discussion). I think this section should be re-written altogether in good English for clarity. Also, the nutritional information is completely lacking in the abstract.

INTRODUCTION
This section does not situate the exact importance of this study and it is full of grammatical errors. Most of the paragraphs will need to be revised and rephrase accordingly. Most of the sentences are very confusing the objective of the work is well explained.

DISCUSSION
The discussion has a very poor scientific presentation format. However, I think the discussion section needs to be rewritten after proper presentation of results. Authors should avoid presenting results in this section. The authors should seek the assistance of an English speaker to address the numerous errors found in this section. Very poor conclusion drawn from the work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: No comments.

REFERENCES
The references have failed to follow the format of the journal

FIGURE CAPTION
No figure caption mentioned in the text.

FIGURE
Most of the graphs are poor done and the some if the axes are overcrowded. Figures have been presented with no labels. Figure 9 is not reported in the Result section. However, I think these figures should be presented in a tabular format. Figure 10, is not necessary because it is a summary of all the figure 9s. Again the different elements (minerals) were not measured using the same approach as such the units of measurements are different. Therefore, they can be lump together as shown in figure 10. I think figure 10 should be deleted.

TABLE
The abbreviations in Table 3, should be written in full as a footnote below the table. The headings of the tables should not be centralized.


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: DIVERSITY OF EDIBLE INSECTS IN A NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SITE OF INDIA: ENTOMOPHAGY ATTITUDES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY IN THE REGION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: All recommended changes have been appropriately done.
Experimental design: The experimental design has been improved. I accept the changes and do not recommend any further changes.
Validity of the findings: I accept the revisions done.
Additional comments: I accept the revisions made and recommend the paper 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: DIVERSITY OF EDIBLE INSECTS IN A NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SITE OF INDIA: ENTOMOPHAGY ATTITUDES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY IN THE REGION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Manuscript is full of inaccuracies, false data, contradictions, unacceptable data of the chemical analyses.
Experimental design: Not entirely clear.
Chemical analyses are not fully explained.
Results more than dubious; some are totally wrong.
Validity of the findings: Ecological part ok;
List of insects with many errors (spelling and contradictions).
Abstract and ms content in disagreement. Text and some Figures/Tables likewise.
Additional comments: Ref Report 305

Composition and nutritional profile of edible insects in a Natural World Heritage Site of India: Implications for food security in the region
By Arup Kumar Hazarika et al.
The authors have submitted a somewhat improved version of their manuscript, but the modifications were largely cosmetic and serious scientific problems were not addressed. The authors did not take their time to spot and correct inaccuracies and contradictions, which this manuscript is full of. Some of the figures and tables are still unacceptable and if the authors cannot get the ms into an acceptable shape, it will have to be rejected, which would be a pity as there are some useful findings and suggestions in this ms. I shall now go through the ms page-by-page and line-by-line.
I wsh to let the authors know NOT to be disheartened by my comments and suggestions: they are meant to help the authors to turn their results and their ms into a ‘product’ theycan be proud of; a publication that will stand the test of time and will be cited by other researchers. But to get the paper into the required ‘shape’ takes more than just a few cosmetic changes. The authors need to spend time and carefully read and re-read the ms many times to iron out inconsistencies, to streamline the text, to remove ambiguities and inaccuracies, correct spelling mistakes etc. Do not rush!  Take your time and do a GOOD job revising the ms, because otherwise you’ll end up with a rejection.
Abstract
L29: delete ‘intend to’
L30:  already criticized the first time, write  “…located in Assam (India).”
L34: not nine orders, but eight ! The next sentence actually lists them.
L39: “…were carried out to record….their possible role as nutrient inputs.”
L41: delete ‘an’ and write “…sustainable collecting and rearing methods, emphasizing …”

Introduction
L52: “As such, they arouse interest not only…”
L53: “ A dimension of their existence not to be overlooked pertains to…”
L55: “…insects form or formed a part of…”
L57: “…is nowadays no longer a traditional  or common …, except for some…”
L64: many Asian nations…
L67 “…found from China’s South to northern Australia…”
L68: “Although edible insects are not yet of much commercial value, some economic and…are available (Johnson 2010)”   NOTE: 2010 is 10 years ago!  Hasn’t the situation changed since then?
L70: delete ‘by its people’.  “Approximately 50 insect species are consumed in the north and about 14 species in the southern part of Thailand…”
L72: delete ‘may’
L73: “…religion and place they call home.”
L75-77: Delete, because that sentence is totally out of place with no connection to previous or following sentences.
L82: delete ‘of Arunachal Pradesh’
L85: write “…by the Galo and Nyishi tribes.”
LL89: NOTE: only proteins and vitamins? Not also lipids and minerals and perhaps fibre and carbohydrates?

Material & Methods
L124: Temperatures range from…
L137: Sweep nets were used for collecting grasshoppers…
L138: naturally hide in low grass  NOTE: why ‘naturally’? Can they also hide unnaturally?
L139¨netting was normally carried out during daytime, BUT see Line 135, where it says during the early hours 0500-0900 !
L143: deleted ‘for a long time’. NOTE: Provide characteristics of the CFL bulb, explain how far from the white cloth; explain size of the white cloth.  If the light was BEHIND a white cloth, why was the bucket of water not in front of the white cloth. At what time of night and for how long were insects trapped in this way.  When and how often were such collections made. Readers should know the seasons when such collecting method was used.
L154: NOTE: you write grasshoppers and beetles were collected by hand, but on Line 137 it says grasshoppers were collected by sweep netting !
L158-159: explain or use references to explain the terms ‘Jakoi’ and ‘Saloni’.
NOTE: what kinds of waterbodies were collections made from and when and how often did that take place? E.g., rivers, swamps, brooks, ponds?
L169: are alcohol and formaldehyde not “standard methods”?
L171: write “…Shillong, Meghalaya (India).
L185: is it ‘Borthakur’ or ‘Barthakur’ as in the references?
L188: delete ‘also’ NOTE: these ecological indices are useful. I like them.
L216: 2672 respondents from 30 villages, BUT what would interest the reader is the number of respondents per tribe studied!
Biochemical analyses (use the plural ‘analyses’ not singular  ’analysis’.  NOTE: this goes for ALL the analyses: how many replicates were carried out! From which part of the insect body was the tissue taken: muscle tissue, fatbody, gonads, brain???
L223: do you really mean just ‘estimated’ or do you mean ‘determined’?
NOTE: where is the detailed description on how you obtained data on the various amino acids and their amounts?
L236: “…was done according to the …”
L245: NOTE: for lipid analyses how were omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid amounts obtained?
L254: How the specimens were prepared for mineral analyses is not explained properly.

Results
L265: the order Isoptera no longer exists; termites are now with Blattodea! Correct also Table 2 and 4.
L271: Table 2, table 4, figure 4 and also the text of the ms contains spelling errors. Please correct: Mecopoda elongata, Hieroglyphus banian, Acheta domesticus, Antheraea assama, Oryctes rhinoceros !
L278: the beetle Hydrophilus olivaceus, mentioned here,  occurs in no table or figure! Instead, it says in several places that only one species of beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) was considered edible (and probably only the grubs and not the adult, but that seems to go unmentioned).
L287: Hieroglyphus banian
L296: “…the order Orthoptera…”
L295: “…followed by Coleoptera (8.02% while the Odonata has the least relative abundance” NOTE: this cannot be right as you have only one species of beetle. Explain.
FIGURE 4 is inadequate: what about the x-axis? There needs to be a scale or some numbers. Furthermore you write Mantis religiosa is most abundant   in the monsoon season, but Fig 4 suggests that it is Periplaneta!  In winter Vespa affinis has the highest ‘availability’ (really? Isn’t Periplaneta equally abundant?)
L294-304: the whole paragraph needs to be rewritten; Figure 4 needs some mumbers (do not give numbers in brackets in the text, but enher them in the text!). Correct the spelling mistakes.
Explain what “highest insect abundance during monsoon season (4808)” means and how that can be gleaned from Figure 4 !’
Paragraph L306 – L321 is equally problematic.  The ethnic communities studied are mentioned in Fig 5. But that figure is useless without an explanation of how many respondents were there for the various ethnic groups. You need a vertical scale ! And what does ‘yellow line’ mean? There is no yellow line, unless you mean the ‘yellow column’.
Figure 6: meaningless unless you explain which tribe this refers to and what the little numbers in the columns mean. For ALL the figures and tables you have to have a brief text, a ‘figure legend ’to explain what the figure or Table contains.
The results, nicely summarized in Fig. 7: but for which tribal group is this applicable? Likewise Fig 8 (in which it surprises me that chutney/pickles do not feature! No insect pickles?)
NOTE: In figures 9 and 10 you are using ‘common names’ like house cricket, crickets,  eri and even ‘water beetle’ (!), which did not appear at all until then, not even in Table 2. Please check ALL of your figures and Tables.
BE CONSISTENT !  Do NOT use ‘common names’ in some tables and scientific names in others, but stick to the scientific names in all tables and figures !
Figures 9 and 10 are wholly inadequate. You can’t use common names here (like grasshoppers, small, brown, large, etc) when in Table 2 and Fig 4 you use scientific terms!  In 9 A – E the sequence of the insects is the same, but in F it is different: why?
You need an explanatory legend to say that the values entered are based on analyses of 100 mg. Even so, the data are more than dubious: magnesium content is as high as carbohydrate (see lengths of the bars!): it can’t be!  Another example: for mole cricket lipid you state 0.055, BUT omega-6 content is 0.24781: impossible!  (I earlier mentioned that you did not provide information on how you measured omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids!
You do not mention on how many replicates the data are based!
You are listing figures with up to 5 decimals behind the comma, which is ridiculous: you are dealing with mg !!!  Using with 5 digits behind the comma you are in nanogram range!
I feel you ought to ditch (= delete all the data in Fig 9 as they are unreliable, which cannot be good for you  and your institute’s reputation.
Likewise Figure 10 (incidentally, suddenly there is a water beetle again in addition to the rhinoceros beetle!): the data are all wrong unless fully explained in a figure legend how you constructed this figure. According to the figure, which lacks units and numbers, calcium and magnesium content (taken together) is higher than lipid !? That whole figure should also be ditched as it is unreliable.
By the way, do you say anywhere in the text which amino acids you refer to as ‘essential’ and how you determined amino acids qualitatively and quantitatively?

Discussion
First paragraph, spelling: Mecopoda elongata, Hieroglyphus banian, Acheta domesticus,  Gryllotalpa africana. “and so on” does not sound very elegant; perhaps you could write “and some others”.
L333-334: “…insects are mainly those of the Adivashis… Sarania. A section…”
L 391-397: you reported 22 edible species, of which one species was a Coleoptera. How can you now wite that 16.66% were Coleoptera?  In fact, with such a small number of species (22), it is not necessary to express numbers in percentages; it’s useless. Use real numbers and NOT percentages. percentages are only useful if you have large numbers to deal with.
L414: “…does not agree…” is misleading. You need to write “…(2019), but in Ethiopia young people are less inclined to eat or even taste insects (Ghosh et al. 2020).”
L420-421: you write “…are very rich in carbohydrates. Our study verifies this fact as we can see from Figure 7 that the insects are rich in protein, but have minimal carbohydrates.” You just wrote in the first half of the sentence “rich in carbohydrates’ and now it’s “minimal carbohydrates’. That is another one of those contradictions in your ms. Besides, you refer to Fig. 7, but Fig. 7 shows “Reasons for practicing entomophagy”!
L427: you write about a “moderate presence of magnesium”, but on Line 319 you write magnesium content is minimal!
L449: you need a reference here to back up your statement!
L451: why “also”?  In fact, there are many places you use “also” and frequently it is not clear why ‘also’. For example ‘also’ on Line 477 and many others.
459-473: that is a terrible paragraph, muddled, inconsistent and about beetles that are either totally inedible (like ladybirds) or are not mentioned in this ms, because you made the earlier statement (n the abstract as well) that there was only one edible coleoptera species, namely Oryctes rhinoceros. I cannot even start correcting this paragraph. Unless completely rewritten, the paragraph should be dropped.
L478: lipid content of larvae… Which larvae?
L481: you do not examine fat content of pupae and larvae of edible Coleoptera of your one species of beetle. If you want to use a reference to show differences in fat (and other contents) between larvae, pupae and adults use this reference: Ghosh et al.2016 “Nutritional value and chemical composition of larvae, pupae, and adults of worker honey bee, Apis mellifera ligustica as a sustainable food source” Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology 19 (2016) 487–495.
L487-500: reduce this paragraph to three sentences.
L502/3: Write “Rearing insects can result in environmental benefits.... Insects can impact organic farming and help to reduce…emit fewer greenhouse gases….compared with conventional livestock…”
L512: Our study confirms…
L514”…possibly reduce the insects’ costs. ….With a wider insect diversity, ….of people should improve while….
L516: ‘fish’?  Which fish? There are more than 40,000 species of fish with very variable fatty acid contents.
L523: “…domesticated since they are of high…”
L525: delete ‘immensely’
L526 ?...help exploiting new…
L530-537: cite Gahukar, R.T. Edible insects collected from forests for family livelihood and wellness of rural communities - a review. Global Food Security 2020, Doi.org 10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100348.

Conclusions
L541: Write “In this study we recorded edible insect diversity…”
L544: not nine, but eight orders of insects.

References:
I did not check the references for accuracy and leave that to the authors.

Figures and Tables
Already commented on in detail (see above text): all need to be modified and some should be dropped.
Figure 1: ok
Figures 2 and 3 are unnecessary. Fig. 4 needs to be improved (see earlier comments above); Gigs 5-8 should be improved (see earlier comments above)
Figures 9 and 10 contain inaccurate data and should be deleted.

Table 1: ok  Table 2: needs to be corrected; Table 3: ok; Table 4: scient. Names to be corrected;
Table 5: completely false data (e.g. termite and cockroach calcium data are almost twice that of protein! Wasp larvae twice as much magnesium as lipid!  All of these data are completely wrong.  Delete this terrible table as quickly as possible!!!


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: DIVERSITY OF EDIBLE INSECTS IN A NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SITE OF INDIA: ENTOMOPHAGY ATTITUDES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FOOD SECURITY IN THE REGION
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Much better than before, but title needs to be re-worded and the reference list still contains dozens of publications from the earlier ms, which are now NOT any more in the text of the revised version. That must be corrected.
Experimental design: OK
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: Ref Report 309
Title: Composition and nutritional profile of edible insects in a Natural World Heritage Site of India: Implications for food security in the region
By: Arup Kumar Hazarika et al.
The revised version of the manuscript is much improved, but some inaccuracies remain and need to be corrected. Also the title had better read:
“Diversity of edible insects in a Natural World Heritage Site of India: entomophagy attitudes and implications for food security in the region”
Having composition and nutritional profile in the title is misleading and sends the wrong message.

L38: write “Aspects of the economic significance of entomophagy were also observed during the field investigation.”

L55: insert after “…is referred to as entomophagy” the reference:  Evans J, Alemu MH, Flore R, Frost MB, Halloran A, Jensen AB, Maciel-Vergara G, Meyer-Rochow VB, Münke-Svendsen C, Olsen SB, Payne C, Roos N, Rozin P, Tans HSG, Van Huis A, Vantomme P, Eilenberg J. ‘Entomophagy’: an evolving
terminology in need of review. J Insects Food Feed. 2015;1(4):293–305. Add this to the references list.

L68/69: the reference to Johnson 2010 is incomplete in the reference list. Page numbers are missing and the name of the book’s editors are Durst, P.B.; Johnson, D.V.; Leslie, R.N. and Shono, K. (eds.). The publisher is issing: FAP Publ., the place is missing: Bangkok.

L69: delete “In Thailand…eaten.” And write “Approximately 50 insect species are eaten in Thailand’s north and about 14  species are eaten by people in southern Thailand (Rattanapan, 2000).”

L 73: “…characteristics can also be important (Dumont, 1987).

L78-80: delete “In Arunachal….. Further” and write “A total of 81 species are eaten in Arunachal Pradesh by the Galo and Nyishi tribes (Chakravorty et al. 2011).” NOTE: this is not the reference you currently have in the list.

L90/91: write “…African nations (Macadam & Stockan, 2017) and are popular in Manipur (India) (Shantibala et al., 2014).”

L134: you write “…as it required good vision”  Good vision by whom? Best drop that part of the sentence and continue “….as we could not collect nocturnal taxa in this way.”

L138/139: it makes no sense to have a light source behind a white cloth and then place a bucket under the light source!  The bucket should be IN FRONT of the white cloth !

L146: replace ‘them’ with “it”

L150: “..or in the evening…”
L151: “Mole and field crickets were dug out…”
L162: replace ‘insects’ with “them”
L170: write: “…around MNP during the period 2018 (June)- 2019 (June).  And delete “The sampling was done” at the end of Line 170.
L213/215; 265; Table2 (local name):  Not clear why in the column titled “Local name” the Bodo language  was chosen. The majority of the respondents were Adivashi not Bodo. Explain please.

L285: “…insects were mainly…”
L93 “Our results show….”
L306  “…has warmed by over 0.5C…” (you need a reference here for that statement!)
L32: The decreasing pattern…”
L 326/7: not clear “…with time while remaining constant at some point.” That seem contradictory!
L327: “This calls for urgent….”  (What do you mean by “This”???)
L330-334: good point !
L 367: “The majority of…”
L378: write “….edible insects require higher energy in culture and contain higher sodium and saturated fat content…”
L389: “This frequently uproots the livelihood…”
L415: wrong citation Van Huis 2003 does not mention with even one word the situation in Laos. You want this reference: Meyer-Rochow VB, Nonaka K, Boulidam S 2018 “More Feared than Revered: Insects and their impact on human societies (with some  specific data on the importance of entomophagy in a Laotian setting)” Entomologie Heute 20, 3-25.

L489: please delete this part of the sentence  “and Prof V.B. Meyer-Rochow, Department of Ecology & Genetcs, University of Oulu, Finland”

References: Delete Chakravorty 2009 and delete reference 8, but replace reference 8 with: Chakravorty J, Ghosh, S. & Meyer-Rochow, V.B. 2011. Practices of entomophagy and entomotherapy by members of the Nyishi and Galo tribes, two ethnic groups of the state of Arunachal Pradesh (North-East India). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2011, 7:5

L644: delete reference 54.

What is really ANNOYING and I can not find excuses for is the lack of attention by the authors to their list of references!   Numerous entries are NOT mentioned/cited in the text and therefore should NOT appear in the list of references.
The references that should be removed (or cited in the text) are
References 4, 6, 8, 13, 19, 27, 29, 38, 39, 41, 44, 47, 49, 53, 54, 55, 56.
An undergraduate tesis (ref 53) is not something that's citable, unless it is available on the web (in that case give webpage).

Figures and Tables now more or less ok!


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: NITROGEN FERTILIZATION AFFECTS MAIZE GRAIN YIELD THROUGH REGULATING NITROGEN UPTAKE, RADIATION AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY, PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND ROOT DISTRIBUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Dear editor and authors:

The present manuscript is reporting a study regarding N fertigation affecting maize grain yield by regulating nitrogen uptake, radiation and water use efficiency, photosynthetic and root distribution. The reviewer argue this study with good design and labored works to give some novel information for accessing N application of maize production in the Loess Plateau of China. The overall MS was prepared well. However, a few of suggestions and questions could be considered for revising as follow:

-Title, please change fertigation to fertilization.
-Abstract, please revise the first sentence.
-IN, Line 35-47 as a manuscript for shooting a international journal, I would suggest not using an local issue to start your introduction, you have to focus on an issue worldwide or regional problem in some countries at least. So please rewrite this part.
-MM, Line 115-137 please add refs for these indicators measurements.
-Results and discussion were ok with the description.

Based on above comments, the final recommendation regarding this manuscript is minor revision.


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

Input:
Title: NITROGEN FERTILIZATION AFFECTS MAIZE GRAIN YIELD THROUGH REGULATING NITROGEN UPTAKE, RADIATION AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY, PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND ROOT DISTRIBUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This is a well-organized article. I have a little doubt that photosynthetic characteristics may be related to soil moisture and maize varieties. Please add this part to the discussion.


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: NITROGEN FERTILIZATION AFFECTS MAIZE GRAIN YIELD THROUGH REGULATING NITROGEN UPTAKE, RADIATION AND WATER USE EFFICIENCY, PHOTOSYNTHESIS AND ROOT DISTRIBUTION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Line 37, although leaching is not a focus in this study, but I feel like it is important to point it out as the excessive N fertilizer not only reducing NUE but causing great leaching (belowground water contamination)

Line 39, omit "application rates vary greatly"? since the point of this sentence is to emphasize the excessive N input.

Line 41, what is approximate level of maize demand?

Line 43, probably also mention about reducing the N leaching, which is a big problem in Ag science.

Line 89, Line 92, "455 m" and "581 mm" are good enough, no need to have one more digit.

Line 94-97, different font size

Line 99, m2, superscript

Line 249-263, please keep consistent about the format of "N0, N150, N225, N300" throughout the manuscript

Figure 1, possibly move to the Appendix since this was a background information, and was not used to explain Results in the Discussion. And only one legend is needed instead of four in four panels.

Figure 2 and 3 can be possibly merged since they are sharing the same experiential settings.

Table 4, last row has five cells displayed in square?
Experimental design: Line 95, were the top 60 cm all organic soils? or having a layer of mineral soils (A horizon)?

Line 160, better to write out the method

Line 163, no need to mention Excel.

Line 163, "presented as SE?" should be "presented with SE"?

Line 164-166, these sentences about ANOVA tests should be moved down to line 195, after calculation of all the index. And the description needs more details, for example, authors also included year as an independent variable in the test, which was not described here.
Validity of the findings: Line 201, were the following sentences saying there was an interaction impact? as the treatment effect was not consistent across years.

Line 228-235, were these statements true in all four years?

Line 243 and line 246, were these two sentences conveying the same idea? omit the second sentence?

Line 265, this first (topic) sentence was too long and included two messages. I suggested starting from "Optimum rate..."

Line 282, reconstruct the sentences. Technically, the N0 is all one type of N application rates.

Line 293, line 301, these two topic sentences read like a Result, please edit them.

What are the reasons of seeing different treatment effects across years? probably due to the variations in precipitation (amount and seasonal distribution) and temperature that shown in Figure 1? Authors should add possible explanation in the Discussion.
Additional comments: This manuscript studied a list of maize index under four levels of N addition over four years. It found that a 25% reduction of current N addition (300 kg ha-1) would still produce an optimal maize growth. Overall this manuscript was well-written but still had some issues as I mentioned 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: EFFECTS OF MICROHABITAT ON RODENT-MEDIATED SEED REMOVAL OF ENDANGERED KMERIA SEPTENTRIONALIS IN THE KARST HABITAT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I enjoyed reading your manuscript and overall, I am of the opinion that it is well written and your ideas are easy to follow.

1. Background and goals (abstract and introduction)

The abstract should be re-written, with more background provided, namely regarding karst ecosystems, their specificity or the need to study them. In addition, clear goals are lacking; it seems that your goal were to improve your knowledge about seed removal in these ecosystems, but you should be more specific: did you want to determine the dominant rodent species removing the seeds? The causes and consequences of seed removal? Microhabitat differences in rates of seed removal? This should be clear by reading the abstract.

Introduction
I think that some concepts need to be introduced with more details. For instance L.51-58 you refer as changes in seed morphology. When you do this, the readers first think of seed size or shape. But here, you refer to a much broader phenomenon; seeds do not only change in size or shape when going through the digestive system of birds, but also in composition, nutritional qualities, odor... and this is not morphology. I suggest that you re-write these sections of your introduction and make it clearer for the reader; and also that you focused only on shape/size and not the other processes.

In addition, you should also better introduced kast ecosystems here as well.

Finally, I think that you should more clearely expose your goals and perhaps make some predictions at the end of your introduction (see detailed comments on the experimental design section).

2. Raw data
I thank you for sharing your raw data. However, there are not sufficient information to perform analyses with this or to be able to assess the validity of your analyses. You should provide the dataset on which you conducted your GLM, with your response variable in column and a column for each of your factors (type of microhabitat, type of seeds, site, day…).

3. Figures
I think that the figures and especially the type of figure for Fig.3 should be revised, as it is difficult to assess the differences with this representation of the data. I make some specific suggestions in the pdf. You should also provide more information in the caption (see detailed comments in the pdf)

4. Minor comments

Although well writtent, there aare still some sentences or ideas that would benefit to be rephrased; see examples L108-109, 148-150. I have made specific comments for each of them within the pdf.

I found the title quite long, perhaps “in the karst habitat, Guangxi, southwestern China » is not mandatory?

The literature was well referenced and relevant.
One suggestion for your introduction: Dylewski, Ł., Ortega, Y. K., Bogdziewicz, M., & Pearson, D. E. (2020). Seed size predicts global effects of small mammal seed predation on plant recruitment. Ecology Letters, 23(6), 1024-1033.
Experimental design: 1. Statistical analyses

My main concern is about statistical analyses. I don't think that the Mann-Whitney or K-S tests are necessary since you conducted a GLM, which seems more appropriate for your analyses. Why did you perform both?

You should provide more details on your GLM (did you use a binomial or a poisson with an offset?). What were the variables that you included? And your response variable (number or proportion of seeds removed)? Consider providing the codes in supp info.

However, I also think that you should consider conducting a GLMM, and include the day of the experiment (since you have 10 days with repeated measurements) and the microhabitat station ID as random effects. Indeed, your data are non-independent and as such, the glm does not seem to be the most appropriate to analyze your data.

2. Although your overall goal is clearly stated and in line with the background provided, I think you should provide more details, in the abstract, but also in your introduction. For instance, L72-74, you could include some predictions. And you should be more specific: was your goal (1) to characterize seed removal (proportions, size, distance… of seeds removed, species targeting the seeds) or to measure the effects of seed type and microhabitat type on the proportion of seeds of an endangered species that were removed, with specific predictions that can be made? Both options are valid, but I think that it should be stated. Also because you conducted an experimental design, which most often allow to investigate clear hypotheses and test predictions.

3. Exposed seeds that you created

L129 – you "created exposed seeds”. But I assume that their pH, odor, texture and nutritional composition was not the same than actual "exposed seeds" that had passed through the digestive tracts of birds? Did you measure differences (i.e. conducted some comparative analyses between real exposed seeds and the ones you created)? Or at least conducted a small food preference experiment, to see whether your seeds were as palatable as real exposed seeds? If not, then I think your conclusion would need to be tempered as you cannot be sure that these seeds indeed mimic real exposed seeds.

4. Protocol of capture and ethics

L107-110: Did you leave the traps open from 7am to 7pm? And checked them only twice? Or do you leave them open all along (during the entire period of 10 days) and checked them twice a day? In any case, this would mean that rodents could spend 12 hours within a trap? Did you have any mortality?

In addition, it seems to me that only 9 rodents captured in 10 days and 10 nights of capture is really low. Do you have an explanation for that?

5. Detailed comments on the experimental design
I think that in different sections (protocol of capture, experiments and statistics), more details are needed. I have made detailed comments in the pdf.
Validity of the findings: Although I do think that this experiment will yield valid findings, that will improve the knowledge on seed dispersion of an endangered tree species, it is difficult to make a comment on the validity of the finding at that stage.

Indeed, since, to my opinion:
1. statistical analyses have to be re-performed with a mixed model
2. the Fig. 3 does not allow to visualy assess the validity of the results presented (for microhabitat differences for instance)
3. the rax data provided do not allow to perform an analysis and would need to be completed and reorganized

I cannot assess the validity of the findings nor the conclusion in details.
Additional comments: Dear authors,
I have enjoyed reading your manuscript and can assess the strong involvement needed to conduct such experiment on site. Although I have made many comments, I have tried my best to remain constructive and hope that this feedback will benefit your manuscript.
Best


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: EFFECTS OF MICROHABITAT ON RODENT-MEDIATED SEED REMOVAL OF ENDANGERED KMERIA SEPTENTRIONALIS IN THE KARST HABITAT
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The article represents an interesting work, however, the article needs English to improve.
Experimental design: no comments
Validity of the findings: The statistical analysis needs to improve. I suggest used the generalized linear mixed models with beta distribution when you calculate the proportion of removed seeds. As a random factors the authors should use the stations ID.
I do not understand why authors used to many different analyses, which analyzed the same research questions.
Additional comments: Authors should be more claryfe in the method section and imporve the intriduction and discusion section.
The authors should change the analyses using the beta distribution.
I have a problem to interpretated the correlations matrix why authors use correlation beteween categorical vairlabes with the contionous viaralbes (removal rate) ?


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: EFFECTS OF MICROHABITAT ON RODENT-MEDIATED SEED REMOVAL OF ENDANGERED KMERIA SEPTENTRIONALIS IN THE KARST HABITAT
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	BASIC REPORTING
Clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout.

The English has been much improved. I have provided some minor comments and tried to copy-edit the abstract that has been substantially modified, although I am myself not a native english speaker.

I am convinced by the authors’ answers to the reviewers’ comments, and despite my suggestions on the abstract and some theoretical issues with parts of the discussions, all my comments are minors.

Intro & background to show context.

Abstract: thanks for clarifying your goals in the abstract. However, I believe that it need English copy-editing. I am not a native English-speaker myself but I have tried to suggest some modifications that you can find below.

L21-22 > “Seeds that fell on the soil surface incured a lower predation risk, which increased the probability for the germinated seeds.” Lower than what? Other microhabitats?

Seed removal behaviors of rodents are largely influenced by microhabitat. Although the karst ecosystem is composed of a broad variety of microhabitats, we have no information on how they affect such behaviors. We investigated rodents’ seed removal behaviors in four karst microhabitats (stone cavern, stone groove, stone surface, and soil surface) using three types of Kmeria septentrionalis seeds: fresh, black (intact seeds with black aril that dehydrates and darkens), and exposed (clean seeds without the aril). We show that Rattus norvegicus, Leopoldamys edwardsi and Rattus flavipectus were the predominant seed predators. In addition, both the microhabitat and seed type influenced rodents’ seed removal behavior.
Indeed, even though all seed types experienced a high removal rate in all four microhabitats, but rodents preferentially removed seeds from the three stone microhabitats (stone caves: 69.71 ± 2.74%; stone surface: 60.53 ± 2.90%; stone groove: 56.94 ± 2.91%) compared to the soil surface (53.90 ± 2.92%). Seeds that had been altered by being exposed to the environment were more attractive to rodents than fresh seeds (76.25 ± 2.20% versus 36.18 ± 2.29%). The seed removal behavior of rodents was significantly affected by the microhabitat and seed type. Finally, seeds that had fallen in the soil surface microhabitat incurred a lower predation risk than seeds fallen in other microhabitats, which increased their probability to germinate. Our results indicate that the lower predation rate of seeds from the endangered K. septentrionalis dropped on the soil surface increases trees’ likelihood of survival.

Introduction

L32 – remove “However,” which would make us think that dispersion has negative effects. You’re just adding more positive effects to those described in your previous sentence.

L40 – the foraging cost – remove “the” and add a “s” at cost.

L41-43 – consider rewriting, for instance: ultimately affecting the probability of seed encounters and foraging behaviors of seed predators (e.g., removal or in situ consumption; Perea et al., 2012; Reed et al., 2005).

L54-55 – formed by several types of microhabitats

L60-61 – suggestion of revision: However, there are few studies on the behavior of rodent seed predators in the karst microhabitat.

L67 – in approximately OR after approximately

L67-68 – karst habitat or karst habitats? Sometimes there is an s, sometimes not “as in the title”.

L74-75 – suggestion of revision: (1) how karst microhabitats affect seed removal behaviors from rodents predating on seeds of K. septentrionalis;

Literature well referenced & relevant.
NA

Structure conforms to PeerJ standards, discipline norm, or improved for clarity.
Ok

Figures are relevant, high quality, well labelled & described.
Yes, I appreciate the work of the authors in improving the figures, especially Fig 3, although for Fig.1 I think that the previous version was of better quality.

Raw data supplied (see PeerJ policy).
I thank you for sharing your raw data.
Experimental design: I am convinced by the authors' modifications to this section and by the experimental design. I only provide minor comments/suggestions.

Materials and Methods – detailed comments

L80-81: please provide under which number.

L155-156 – avoid the use of double brackets > (GLMM ; lme4 package, version
156 3.2.5, R Core Team, 2016)

L171 – was perceptibly > add “was”, and what do you mean by perceptibly? On the graphs but not significant?

Captions
Table 1 – Description of table 1 (replace describe by description)
Validity of the findings: Discussion

L186 – add a “s” at seed.

L187 – replace “a high” by “such high”

L191 – replace “lower” by “low”

L193 – remove “mother”

L193 - Leopoldamys edwardsi, Rattus norvegicus > replace by L. edwardsi and R. norvegicus after first mention in the manuscript and write it consistently throughout the text, to also be consistent with R. flavipectus.

L195-196 – suggested modifications (replace larger/higher/smaller by large/high/small, trait by value and cost by expenditure): Rodents prefer to disperse and cache large seeds with high nutritional value and will consume small seeds immediately to compensate for energy expenditure during foraging.

L197 – I do not agree with this statement, is it demonstrated in this species or a speculation? Seeds may be small but highly concentrated in nutrients. It is true, however, that, to meet the same energy input, they will have to eat more small seeds than large seeds. But this does not mean that small seeds have poor nutritional value (also considering that energy input is not the only parameter to take into account when talking about nutritional value). Perhaps consider rephrasing, or if you have a reference confirming this affirmation in the specific case of K. septentrionalis, please mention it.

L202-204 – perhaps I am misunderstanding here, but I feel that this is contradictory to what you state in your abstract, no?

L206 – in sheltered habitats ("in" is missing)

L208 – in the stone cavern

L209-210 – please develop a bit more here, as I am not convinced by this simple statement. Some predators have an excellent sight in dark conditions.

L214-215 - Conversely, seeds falling on soil surfaces have lower removal rates, which may reduce the seed predation risk by rodents > well, the fact that seeds have lower removal rates is not a cause of the reduction in seed predation, but a consequence for a lower predation, no? I don’t understand your point here, could you be more explicit?

L228 – remove “the” before rodents

L238 – than on the soil surface

L238-239 - remove “the” before seeds

L240 – of the endangered K. septentrionalis.
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: TEMPORAL EXPRESSION PROFILES OF LNCRNA AND MRNA IN HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL-DERIVED MOTOR NEURONS DURING DIFFERENTIATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English should be carefully checked by native English speakers. This manuscript is very descriptive and no confirmation of the impact of DE-lnc RNA and mRNA in the MN differentiation.
Experimental design: In this paper, research question was well defined, and it is meaningful in the research field. Methods are well described in this study with adequate information and references. However, I strongly recommend validating the role of newly identified key gene(s)/lncRNAs using siRNA-mediated knockdown whether it would change MN differentiation capacity (by checking proper markers gene expression or dendritic arborization).
Validity of the findings: This study provides reproducible analysis and its impact is important for the field of neuroscience research. The topic is interesting however further confirmation is required to validate their hypothesis regarding the roles of lncRNA in the MN differentiation.
Additional comments: The author bioinformatically analyzed the transcript sequencing data of motor neuron (MN) differentiation. This paper is well written, and its analysis is clear. However, functional studies (as suggested) should be performed to validate the bioinformatic analysis. For example, is there any data previously published data to support the gene profiling of the MN differentiation (especially lnc RNA expression pattern)? Are there any studies using in vivo models regarding the identified pathway in this study? If so, please refer to the papers in this study. If not, please knockout or knockdown the identified RNAs to be involved in the MN fifferntiation and check the effect of them on MN differentiation (Just to prove this study is valid). As they aslo use a cell line for ES cells, I believe it should be required to confirm these things (please test some gene knockdown or knockout experiments).


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: TEMPORAL EXPRESSION PROFILES OF LNCRNA AND MRNA IN HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL-DERIVED MOTOR NEURONS DURING DIFFERENTIATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: 1.	There are many problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction in the paper, which needs to be proof-read carefully and checked. The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. For example, at the first line in abstract, “have” should be deleted; at the 35th line, “predict” should be revised as “predicted”; at the 37th line, “construct” should be revised as “constructed”; at the 40th line, “the” is advised to be changed to “a”; at the 72th line, “mRANs” should be revised as “mRNAs” etc.
2.	At the 129th line, Figure 2 should be changed to Figure 1B.
3.	Please check the 152th line and 155th line to confirm Figure 4A and Figure 4B. Figure 4A and 4B should be replaced with each other.
4.	Please add the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analysis and Heat map for the differentially expressed mRNA.
5.	Function enrichment analysis is advised to do for the differentially expressed mRNA and lncRNA respectively.
6.	Please show the clearer image of Figure 6, especially for Figure 6C.
7.	It is advised to be confirmed in cells whether has-miR-338-3p inhibits the processes of motor neurons differentiation through targeting HOXA3, which is ameliorated by lncRNA NCAM1-AS.
Experimental design: Reasonable
Validity of the findings: 1. Statistical tests should be stated in the figure legends. The number of determinations analyzed in each group of each graph should be stated in the Figure legends.
2. In Figure 4, please show the statistical meaning of “*” in Figure legend.
Additional comments: The authors have identified lncRNAs and mRNAs during motor neurons differentiation of human embryonic stem cells. From 283 target genes of differentially expressed lncRNAs, six mRNAs were found to be differentially expressed, and lncRNAs (NCAM1-AS) and mRNAs (HOXA3) were further confirmed for constructing the lncRNA NCAM1-AS-miRNA-HOXA3 network using bioinformatics analyses. The experiment design and data are sound, but the manuscript is far from qualified to publish in Peer J now. There are some suggestions above that the authors should address to help improve the quality of the manuscript.


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

Input:
Title: TEMPORAL EXPRESSION PROFILES OF LNCRNA AND MRNA IN HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL-DERIVED MOTOR NEURONS DURING DIFFERENTIATION
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: This paper mainly shows temporal expression profiles of lncRNA and mRNA related to MN differentiation, which seems important in uncovering the mechanism of MN differentiation. However, based on the current data of this paper, I do believe is not good enough for publishing, and I don’t advise the editor to accept this paper considering the follow major related problems:
1.	We think the method by which the author discovered the different expression genes is somewhat improper. The process that hESCs differentiate into spinal cord MNs is a kind of dynamic regulation. Though the author compare D6, D12, D18 to D0, respectively, the comparion between D12 and D6, D18 and D12 is necessary as well. Because there may exist some genes up-regulated at the beginning, then down-regulated later.
2.	In Figure 4A, the author said “However, lncRNA H9 increased significantly at D12, but decreased at D18. Our results agreed with the data of RNA-sequencing generally”. The author only found the up-regulated or down-regulated lncRNAs, why did they conclude that the dynamic expressed H9 agreed with the data of RNA-sequencing?
3.	The author identified the key factors that regulated MN differentiation by GO analysis. However, the author only listed the Go terms, failed to discover the underlying meaning of GO analysis.
4.	In Figure 5B, the author only drew the PPI network, but failed to explain the result of this analysis. Though we saw the relationship between two or more genes, what’s the importance of them during MN differentiation?
5.	In Figure 6C, the author said “We also performed the topological analysis of PPI network on these target genes”. Where is the conclusion?
6.	We can’t find the figure which shows “Construction of lncRNA -miRNA-mRNA interaction network”.
7.	We have to say the writing of this paper is a little careless. Particularly, in section Results, the author only listed the results mostly, but failed to draw conclusions.
8.	There is a mistake in Table 1, HOXA3 and SP9 ‘Reverse’part.


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: TEMPORAL EXPRESSION PROFILES OF LNCRNA AND MRNA IN HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL-DERIVED MOTOR NEURONS DURING DIFFERENTIATION
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: English is improved, however I would like to see one example of the effect of lncRNA/miRNA (the ones they identified in this study) in the process of neuronal differentiation. I think it does not take that long procedure to validate the effect of one lncRNA/miRNA.
Experimental design: The same as written in basic report. The authors should validate the role of one of the lncRNA in neuronal differentiation.
Validity of the findings: N/A(mentioned in previous round of review)
Additional comments: I still think it would be nice to have one good example of what happens if they deplete one/ a few lncRNA and perform a simple experiment (eg. compare using proper stem and neuronal marker gene expressions). The best comparison is D0 vs D18 but, D0 vs D6 is an alternative if they cannot wait for 18days to get full differentiation status).


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: TEMPORAL EXPRESSION PROFILES OF LNCRNA AND MRNA IN HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL-DERIVED MOTOR NEURONS DURING DIFFERENTIATION
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: all the criteria is fulfilled.
Experimental design: all the criteria is fulfilled.
Validity of the findings: all the criteria is fulfilled.
Additional comments: The authors have added new data regarding the effect of lncRNA NCAM1-AS on MNP diﬀerentiation. Therefore, now the quality of the study is at the level of the publication in Peer J.


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: TEMPORAL EXPRESSION PROFILES OF LNCRNA AND MRNA IN HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL-DERIVED MOTOR NEURONS DURING DIFFERENTIATION
Review round: 4
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors basically have addressed the point that raised. But there are still some writing mistakes that authors should carefully correct. For example, at the 76th line, “form” should be revised as “from”; at the 126th line, “was” should be revised as “were” etc.
Experimental design: Reasonable
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: 1.	The authors should respond point-to-point.
2.	The authors basically have addressed the point that raised. But there are still some writing mistakes that authors should carefully correct. For example, at the 76th line, “form” should be revised as “from”; at the 126th line, “was” should be revised as “were” etc. After the authors have corrected the grammar and writing mistakes, the article can be considered to publish in the Peer J.


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: REGIONAL INFECTIOUS RISK PREDICTION OF COVID-19 BASED ON GEO-SPATIAL DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript subject is new and interesting but it should be corrected as follow comments;
1- The introduction is well-written however it should concentrate on the novelty and importance of the work.
2- Equation should be enumerated and cited in the manuscript.
3- The format of commas is not correct.
4- the manuscript is the lock of figures. it needs some figures or plot for reader to be helpful.
5- The manuscript should consider the sensitivity analysis to find the effective parameters. it should also add to the literature review,  Investigation of effective climatology parameters on COVID-19 outbreak in Iran(Science of the Total Environment), Environmental Science and Pollution Research (Modeling and sensitivity analysis of NOx emissions and mechanical efficiency for diesel engine), Application of gene expression programming and sensitivity analyses in analyzing effective parameters in gastric cancer tumor size and location(Soft Computing),
6- You should also use some artificial intelligence methods for analysis. you should also use prediction methods of

Presentation of new thermal conductivity expression for –water and CuO–water nanofluids using gene expression programming (Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry), Presentation of a new hybrid approach for forecasting economic growth using artificial intelligence approaches(Neural Computing and Applications0, A gene expression programming model for economic growth using knowledge-based economy indicators(Journal of Modelling in Management), Statistical and Econometrical Analysis of Knowledge-Based Economy Indicators Affecting Economic Growth in Iran: The new evidence of Principal Component Analysis-Tukey and ARDL(Journal of Policy Modeling).
Experimental design: the manuscript has an Experimental  data and should explain the data description statistic
Validity of the findings: validation the manuscript is incorrect and should be improved
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: REGIONAL INFECTIOUS RISK PREDICTION OF COVID-19 BASED ON GEO-SPATIAL DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: The English is mostly clear but it could do with some editing.

The major issue with this research, and it is for this reason that I recommend that it is rejected, is that there is an absence of references to previous works. There need to be  references cited backing up the method used by the researchers. I realize that this is a new pandemic but previous epidemiological studies can be referenced as can the motivation for the research methodology used. This is one of the basic principals of scientific research and as such it should not be published in its current form.

It is very strange that this is a paper on geospatial methods and yet no maps or Figures of any description are provided.

The paper refers to a submission date of March and yet I only received this paper more than three months later suggesting that this is not the first journal to receive this paper. Especially given that this is a fastly moving pandemic, the data should be as up to date as possible.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: It may well be that the paper has a contribution to add to the understanding of the pandemic. Unfortuantely it reads more like a report than a scientific paper and therefore I have to recommend that it is rejected. If the authors wish to try and publish elsewhere, I recommend that they make sure the pandemic information is as up to date as possible and they follow the generally accepted approach of making sure the research is placed within the established body of litereature.


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: REGIONAL INFECTIOUS RISK PREDICTION OF COVID-19 BASED ON GEO-SPATIAL DATA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: An extended background on Covid-19 is covered in Introduction. Introduction should be written clearly and concisely on the problem the authors would like to address and why it is an important problem to tackle. The Introduction section should also contains the description of the approach along with the brief discussion on the justification to support the approach taken. The findings of the approach as well as the contributions of the paper are not highlighted. The approach employed by the authors has practical value that merits sharing with the wider academic community, but more work needs to be done to emphasize their technical aspects as well as to more convincingly demonstrate the original contribution that this work makes to the scholarly knowledge base. Both findings and contributions should be clearly stated in the introduction part of the paper.

A vague and inconsistent expression such as “more than two months ago”,  “geographic information adjacency” instead of “geographic adjacency information” throughout the paper should be avoided. In terms of literature review, a list of COVID related studies and a brief literature review on risk in coronavirus studies are described in the Introduction section. An important first step that will need to be taken to address this shortcoming is the inclusion of a more comprehensive literature review. In its present form, the brief discussion of existing work in the Introduction is inadequate in breadth and depth. While cursory mention is made in this section of other studies and the fact that they do not support risk mapping inside Mainland China, there is no attempt to present a comparison of their features, strengths, and weaknesses, and more importantly, to show how the present work builds upon and extends what has already been done. Also conspicuously missing from the literature review is coverage of the relevant scientific literature on the use of spatial indexes, economic indexes, and mobility indexes and the intersection between these areas, especially as they relate to surveillance and prediction of risk within both infectious and non-infectious diseases.

Furthermore, additional visualizations such as the map of Mainland China with provincial information as well as the relevant index numbers from (Table 1)  will increase the readability for the readers who are not familiar with the topology of the provinces. Some tables need clarification particularly on the use of different colors (red vs. blue) of fonts. Instead of varying the colors, varying the font style such as Bold vs. Italics is recommended.
Experimental design: The "Methods and Results" section gives a step by step description of the method. This part of the manuscript could be enhanced through the addition of more detailed technical on “programming and simulation” in every step of the method as well as justification of the decisions and choices made, with reference to extant research findings and (spatial risk mapping) theory that underpinned or informed the various aspects of the study approach. It would also be worthwhile outlining alternative techniques and approaches that may have been considered, including the reasons they were deemed unsuitable.
Validity of the findings: As part of the evaluation, the results are evaluated against the actual risk division results from a news website on daily reporting information about the disease. Coronavirus is an ongoing pandemic and this study compare the results with the information from one specific point in time, it is important to report and discuss the source, and when the snapshot was taken to further validate the results.
The "Discussion" section is needed to add. If the manuscript is to move beyond mere "show and tell" to make a real contribution to the field, the Discussion will need to be substantially developed to (a) situate the outcomes, findings, and lessons learned from the study in the wider context of the literature surveyed in the (expanded) literature review; (b) offer evidence-based practical recommendations for researchers, policy planners and system developers that are grounded in the researchers’ findings and experiences/observations; and (c) consider how the present work might apply to or otherwise have value that transcends the discipline of risk mapping in epidemiology.
Additional comments: Line (52 - 67), existing work is described. More technical insights are needed and how and why the existing work is not suitable for the problem the authors are tackling?
Line (75 - 79) In the last paragraph of the introduction, the approach should be summarized and the findings should be briefly delivered? Importantly, the main contributions of the paper should be highlighted.
Line 82 -” more than two months ago”, needs clarification
Introduction and Inspiration sections can be combined together and add a related work section covering the discussion on how spatial proximity information, economic indexes, and mobility indexes have been used disease risk mapping in general and in particular coronavirus.

Line 97, 259, 263 - information adjacency -> adjacency information
Line 107 - “* the numbers of cities in this paper are in the order of Table 1.”, Table 1 is the list of provinces or provincial municipalities instead of cities.
Line 109 - “Based on the above geographical adjacency information, we partitioned the 31 provinces or provincial municipalities into 4 risk levels with Hubei as the center of infectious diseases.” Justification is needed for four risk levels and explanation on how the provinces are partitioned explicitly.
Line 109 - Table 2 presents instead of Table 2 present
Line 112 - table 2 -> Table 2
Line 122 - Hubei was stated twice.
Line 124 - add scholarly references to such Principle
Line 127 - clarify “simple programming and simulation”.
Line 132 - full stop (not a comma) after Table 2.
Line 138 - The sentence begins with In comparison with the real data, …..State the location of the real data in the paper? If it is Table 4, state it clearly.
Line 139 - 142: The sentence starts with “From the epidemic index: …”, to which table the authors are referring to? The indexes the authors referred to the sentence are the indexes in Table 1 which are not related to the epidemic index.
Line 146 - need a reference to “the real level division,”
Line 149 - need a reference to “the real situation”,
Line 157 - The sentence “Instead of geographical adjacency, with all of them given the same weight index.” Need to clarify “them” in the second part of the sentence.
Line 161 - It is express -> It is expressed
Line 166 - need a reference to theory of distance inverse weight
Line 172 - The sentence starts with “After programming and simulation, …”. Need to elaborate on the simulation, what was simulated and how it has been done?
Line 197 - In paragraph reference to Lin Guangping (2015) is not matched with the reference #26 (which is stated as 2005)
Line 228 - the same comment as Line 172.
Line 234 - table 10 -> Table 10.
Line 242 - The sentence starts with “In other hand, …”. The following sentence in Line 243 also starts with “In other hand,...”.
Line 244 - Need clarification on the phrase “three-level dangerous provinces”.
Line 259 - The spread novel coronavirus -> The spread of novel coronavirus
Line 259 - the same suggestion as at Line 172.
Line 259 - The sentence stated  Euclidean spatial distance, geographical economic distance and Baidu migration index, and …….are predicted.”
“Euclidean spatial distance, geographical economic distance and Baidu migration index” are not predicted, they are used in predicting the risk of the regions in the study.
Line 263 - the authors stated that the accuracy of 54% for geographical information adjacency. Providing information such as (the ranks of xx/yy provinces are correctly predicted) will assist the reader.
Line 263 - geographical information adjacency -> geographical adjacency information
Line 264 - The sentence is not clear  “there are some differences between the simulation results and the actual epidemic situation, and the prediction results have specific reference values”. What are the specific reference values? With 54% of accuracy, it is obvious that there are differences but need to state them stately.
Line 269 - the same suggestion as at Line 263
Tables  4, 6, 8, 11, what is the meaning of the use of different colors (blue and red)
Tables 4, 6, 8, when the real division results, when the information was accessed?


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: REGIONAL INFECTIOUS RISK PREDICTION OF COVID-19 BASED ON GEO-SPATIAL DATA
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The manuscript has not been revised correctly. the comments need to be considered again as follows:

1- All of the reviewer's comments should be highlighted.
2- The references mentioned in the text are not in ref. for example, the Ahmadi et al., (2020) is not in ref.
3- The result of the manuscript is poor and the authors should revise again.
4- The authors should add the new section as a literature review:
- Presentation of a new hybrid approach for forecasting economic growth using artificial intelligence approaches (Neural Computing and Applications)
- Diagnosis and Detection of Infected Tissue of COVID-19 Patients Based on Lung X-Ray Image Using Convolutional Neural Network Approaches(Chaos, Solitons & Fractals)
- Application of gene expression programming and sensitivity analyses in analyzing effective parameters in gastric cancer tumor size and location(Soft Computing )
5- The discussion is very poor and the authors should mention the importance of their manuscript in comparison with other papers.
Experimental design: The manuscript has not been revised correctly. the comments need to be considered again as follows:

1- All of the reviewer's comments should be highlighted.
2- The references mentioned in the text are not in ref. for example, the Ahmadi et al., (2020) is not in ref.
3- The result of the manuscript is poor and the authors should revise again.
4- The authors should add the new section as a literature review:
- Presentation of a new hybrid approach for forecasting economic growth using artificial intelligence approaches (Neural Computing and Applications)
- Diagnosis and Detection of Infected Tissue of COVID-19 Patients Based on Lung X-Ray Image Using Convolutional Neural Network Approaches(Chaos, Solitons & Fractals)
- Application of gene expression programming and sensitivity analyses in analyzing effective parameters in gastric cancer tumor size and location(Soft Computing )
5- The discussion is very poor and the authors should mention the importance of their manuscript in comparison with other papers.
Validity of the findings: The manuscript has not been revised correctly. the comments need to be considered again as follows:

1- All of the reviewer's comments should be highlighted.
2- The references mentioned in the text are not in ref. for example, the Ahmadi et al., (2020) is not in ref.
3- The result of the manuscript is poor and the authors should revise again.
4- The authors should add the new section as a literature review:
- Presentation of a new hybrid approach for forecasting economic growth using artificial intelligence approaches (Neural Computing and Applications)
- Diagnosis and Detection of Infected Tissue of COVID-19 Patients Based on Lung X-Ray Image Using Convolutional Neural Network Approaches(Chaos, Solitons & Fractals)
- Application of gene expression programming and sensitivity analyses in analyzing effective parameters in gastric cancer tumor size and location(Soft Computing )
5- The discussion is very poor and the authors should mention the importance of their manuscript in comparison with other papers.
Additional comments: The manuscript has not been revised correctly. the comments need to be considered again as follows:

1- All of the reviewer's comments should be highlighted.
2- The references mentioned in the text are not in ref. for example, the Ahmadi et al., (2020) is not in ref.
3- The result of the manuscript is poor and the authors should revise again.
4- The authors should add the new section as a literature review:
- Presentation of a new hybrid approach for forecasting economic growth using artificial intelligence approaches (Neural Computing and Applications)
- Diagnosis and Detection of Infected Tissue of COVID-19 Patients Based on Lung X-Ray Image Using Convolutional Neural Network Approaches(Chaos, Solitons & Fractals)
- Application of gene expression programming and sensitivity analyses in analyzing effective parameters in gastric cancer tumor size and location(Soft Computing )
5- The discussion is very poor and the authors should mention the importance of their manuscript in comparison with other papers.