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

Input:
Title: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE AMONG THAIS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES: A MULTICENTER STUDY
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
The article in general has been written in clear, unambiguous, technically correct English and is conform to professional standards of courtesy and expression. A few remarks:
-	Line 54: please write the abbreviation ‘GDP’ in full the first time
-	Line 151: ‘gudielines’ must be ‘guidelines’
-	Line 178: ‘characteristic’ must be ‘characteristics’

Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
In my view the article is lacking sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. First no reference has been given in line 64 related to ‘have been shown’ that diabetes self-care has two antecedents. Second no elaboration has been given about the arguable concept of general self-efficacy (line 85). Bandura (2006) himself explicitly claims in Chapter 14 Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales in the book Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents from F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), that ‘the efficacy belief system is not a global trait but a differentiated set of beliefs linked to distinct realms of functioning’ (p. 307). However, the authors state that ‘General self-efficacy may be considered a more stable personality trait’ (line 78) referring to Salsman et al., but without any foundation. Third line 84 is unclear: ‘…..importantly what aspects are more likely to be successfully modified through intervention.’ Fourth the aim of the study is ‘to demonstrate the validity (and reliability? - reviewer) of the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) in Thai adults with T2D’ (lines 92 & 93). Why then also examining the relationship between general self-efficacy and diabetes management self-efficacy as this is already part of demonstrating the construct validity of the GSES?
Literature is not appropriately referenced: line 121 (Bijl et al., 1999) must be (van der Bijl et al., 1999) and the matching reference in the reference list (line 304) needs to be changed into: Bijl, J. van der, Poelgeest-Eeltink, A. van, and Shortridge-Baggett, L. (1999). And in line 122 the domain of medical treatment is missing.

Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Conclusions are missing. Figures, tables and raw data of the article look okay.

Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
The submission should not treat the relationship between GSES and DMSES as a separate aim of the study, because - as stated earlier -  it is part of the construct validity testing process of the GSES. Other psycho/clinimetric instruments were included but will be used in future work. This is not relevant information. Don’t mention it.
Experimental design: Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
The primary aim of the study must be the question about the validity and reliability of the Thai GSES, because there is no translated and validated Thai version of the GSES available. The argumentation for the value of and using the GSES in the Thai diabetes population must come from the study The General Self-Efficacy Scale: Multicultural Validation Studies by Luszczynska, Scholz, and Schwarzer in The Journal of Psychology, 2005, 139(5), 439–457.

Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
The research has been conducted in conformity with the existing technical- and ethical standards in the field.

Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Methods section need more focus on the psychometric properties of the GSES. First the design is not a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Although, data are collected during several years, the analysis is cross-sectional. At one point in time the collected data were analysed. A more appropriate description of the design is a methodological design looking at the psychometric properties of the GSES or a psychometric study. Second the COSMIN-validation methods were not completely followed. For example, the test-retest reliability of the GSES is missing and also the longitudinal validity (responsiveness) of the GSES has not been checked. This was one of the questions stated in the introduction: ‘how modifiable may patients’ attitude towards their disease self-management be?’ Thirdly it is not clear why the translation validity of the DMSES has been checked again, while Sangruangake et al. already showed in 2017 that the DMSES was valid in Thai adults with T2D.
Validity of the findings: Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
Rationale and benefit to literature is not clearly stated. Explicitly include the results of the study of Luszczynska et al. (2005).

All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Data have been provided, and the statistical analyses are sound and relevant.

Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results.
There are no explicit stated conclusions. The Discussion elaborates the results and limitations but clear conclusions are not given.
Additional comments: No comment


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

Input:
Title: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE AMONG THAIS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES: A MULTICENTER STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: GENERAL REMARK: The information regarding line numbers refers to the version with changes in tracking mode.

1	Basic reporting
1.1	Clear, unambiguous, professional English language used throughout
There are still several flaws in basic reporting. The most essential flaws refer to the introduction. The authors have incorporated their reactions to the review comments in such a manner that the argumentation flow is destroyed. This refers to lines 67 to 71 (‘The diabetes…’ to ‘…(McDowell et al., 2005).’) and to lines 99 to 115 (‘Luszczynska…’ to ‘…GSES exists.’) Moreover, the latter text part is not well structured in itself and references are missing.

In addition to this, there are still further minor flaws

Lines 26 to 28
The authors write
‘Improving patient self-care through its antecedents, diabetes knowledge and diabetes management self-efficacy, represents a feasible way of ameliorating the impact of T2D for both the patient, and in health care systems.‘
I cannot make sense of this sentence. There seems to be a linguistic flaw.

Line 84
There must be an apostrophe, i.e. it must be ‘an individual’s’.

Line 171
There is a problem with the reference. It should be placed in front of the full stop. Moreover, in this case, reporting the publication year would do.
Lines 179-180: This sentence is poorly formulated. Very confusing.
Lines 194-195: ‘being well established as a poor measure’ is a very peculiar formulation.
Lines 278 to 280:
The authors write:
‘We also observed that in our sample that some domains of DMSES (e.g. Monitoring Self-efficacy) correlated more highly with GSES, then others (e.g. Regimen DMSEs).’
I suggest writing:
‘In our sample we also observed that some domains of DMSES (e.g. Monitoring Self-efficacy) correlated more highly with GSES, than others (e.g. Regimen DMSEs).’

Line 291
The authors write:
‘In terms of how both GSES and DMSES vary with patient characteristics. We found region of…’
There must be a comma behind ‘characteristics’.

Lines 296-298
The authors write:
‘Indeed, it brings up the question of whether measures of self-efficacy may also reflect patient complacency; Those who feel confident in managing their disease may include individuals who underestimate the difficulties and/or commitment in doing so.’
There must be a full stop behind ‘complacency’. Moreover, the second sentence is difficult to understand. I suggest writing:
‘Some of those who feel confident in managing their disease may underestimate the difficulties and/or commitment in doing so.’

1.2 Further flaws in presentation or, respectively, minor flaws in argumentation
Lines 85-86
What does it mean that something seems logical? From an epistemic point of view, substantiating an empirical claim by stating that this seems logical is a bit naive.
Line 87
I guess there is more than one specific domain. In this case, there should also be more than one domain-specific component of self-efficacy.

Line 121
The authors follow the suggestion of reviewer 3 to call their study ‘methodological’. I think that this advice of reviewer 3 was not wise. There is no study design called ‘methodological study’. The authors should use the other term mentioned by reviewer 3, i.e. cross-sectional study.
1)	The authors should divide the whole sub-chapter into more than one paragraph.
2)	Before describing a statistical procedure, the authors should mention the purpose for which this procedure is applied. Especially, this includes giving a clear overview of the criteria applied for judging validity. Still more especially, this includes some information they have provided in their comments to my previous review.
3)	A part of the text within this sub-chapter already refers to results. The authors should formulate their methods part so that there is no need to refer to results and present the results in the results part.
Experimental design: 2	Experimental design
The research question are now much formulated than in the first version. However, there is one commentary of mine that the authors have not adequately addressed. I assume that the reason is that my commentary in the previous review was not clear enough. Therefore, I want to reformulate it now:
‘The interrelation between two variables gives no information as to which of these two variables can be better affected by an intervention!’
The authors should omit all considerations into this direction!

In addition to this, I have remarks regarding Sub-sub-chapters ‘Validation of the DMSES in Thai people with Type 2 Diabetes’ and ‘The General Self-Efficacy Scale’ and the sub-chapter ‘Statistical Analyses’.
Sub-sub-chapters ‘Validation of the DMSES in Thai people with Type 2 Diabetes’ and ‘The General Self-Efficacy Scale’
1)	In both cases, the authors should report the criteria that have been applied for testing validity (lines 151 and 161).
2)	In both cases, the authors assign ordinal scale level to the answer categories of the basic items. However, all statistical procedures with which the authors process the data of these items require interval scale level. This even applies to Cronbach’s alpha. For ordinal scales, the results of all these statistical procedures would be empirically meaningless. I urgently recommend omitting the word ‘ordinal’ in lines 154 and 163. Otherwise, the authors would have to redo all their analyses with statistical procedures that are appropriate for ordinal scales.
3)	The authors should report in both cases how the items are aggregated to values for the total instrument. By the way, for items with interval scale level, summing up would be ok. For items with ordinal level, some kind of IRT-scaling would be necessary.

Sub-chapter ‘Statistical Analyses’
I can understand the authors reply to my comment regarding categorizing the self-efficacy-scales and then computing proportional odds ordinal logistic regression. In reaction to the authors’ reply, I would prefer standardized beta. However, I do not want to be overly dogmatic. So, if the authors feel better with this they should stick to their procedure.
Validity of the findings: 3	Validity of findings
All conclusions regarding the question as to which of the two variables can better be affected by an intervention are not valid. This question cannot be answered with the data at hand. As stated above, this topic should be omitted.
End of Abstract
‘Conclusions. We believe the GSES represents a useful tool to examine the efficacy of proposed and existing diabetes self management, and management self-efficacy interventions.’
I cannot understand that the results imply that GSES represents a useful tool to examine the efficacy of proposed and existing diabetes self management.
Additional comments: nothing


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

Input:
Title: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE AMONG THAIS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES: A MULTICENTER STUDY
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Language
Line 28: alter ‘self management’ into ‘self-management’
Line 32: the official abbreviation of the General Self-Efficacy Scale is GSE and not GSES
Line 33: alter ‘Diabetes-management’ into ‘Diabetes Management
Line 40: alter ‘diabetes-management’ into ‘diabetes management
Line 43: alter ‘self management’ into ‘self-management’
Line 78: alter ‘Self-efficacy’ into ‘self-efficacy’
Line 82: alter ‘Bijl, J. van der et al., 1999’ into ‘van der Bijl et al., 1999’
Line 89: alter ‘Diabetes’ into ‘diabetes’
Lines 93 and 94: alter ‘Diabetes management self-efficacy (Diet-, Exercise-, Monitoring-
and Medical treatment-self efficacy)’ into ‘diabetes management self-efficacy (diet-, exercise-, monitoring- and medical treatment self-efficacy)’
Lines 94 and 95: alter ‘General and Diabetes management self-efficacy’ into ‘general- and diabetes management self-efficacy’
Line 114: alter ‘Indonsians’ into ‘Indonesian’
Line 153 and 154: alter ‘Diet self-efficacy, Exercise self-efficacy, Monitoring self-efficacy
and Regimen self-efficacy’ into ‘diet self-efficacy, exercise self-efficacy, monitoring self-efficacy
and regimen self-efficacy’
Line 169 to 172: not relevant for the present study ‘Other psycho/clinimetric instruments included the Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities developed by Toobert and colleagues Toobert et al. (2000), and the Diabetes Knowledge Scale developed by Beeney and others. Beeney L. et al. (2003). We don’t consider these scales in the present study, but leave this for future work.’
So these sentences can be deleted.
Line 185: alter ‘Parallel’ into ‘parallel’
Line 196: alter ‘Bartlett?s’ into ‘Bartlett’s’
Line 213: alter ‘Monitoring self efficacy’ into ‘monitoring self-efficacy’
Title Figure 1, before line 239: alter ‘Corrgram of General- and Diabetes management-self efficacy’ into ‘Corrgram of general- and diabetes management self-efficacy’
Line 239: alter ‘General and Diabetes-management’ into ‘general and diabetes-management’
Title Table 3: alter ‘General self efficacy and Diabetes management’ into ‘general self-efficacy and diabetes management’
Line 250: alter ‘General and Diabetes management’ into ‘general and diabetes management’
Line 259 and 261: alter ‘Diabetes’ into ‘diabetes’
Line 269: alter ‘Diabetes-management’ into ‘diabetes management’
Line 279: alter ‘(e.g. Monitoring Self-efficacy)’ into ‘(e.g. monitoring self-efficacy)’
Line 280: alter ‘Regimen DMSEs’ into ‘(regimen DMSES)’
Line 287: alter ‘Exercise-, Nutrition- and smoking abstinence- self-efficacy’ into ‘exercise-, nutrition- and smoking abstinence self-efficacy’
Line 292: alter ‘General and Diabetes management’ into ‘general and diabetes management’
Line 337: alter ‘self efficacy’ into ‘self-efficacy’
Line 338: alter ‘metabolic-syndrome’ into ‘metabolic syndrome’

Abstract
In the background nothing is written about the motive for this study: the lack of a validated instrument to measure GSE.
In the methods section is not described what reliability and validity measures are studied and the sample size included in the study is not mentioned.
Specific results about the reliability and validity measures are not reported, e.g. Cronbach’s alpha.
The main conclusion, that the Thai GSE is a reliable and valid measure, is missing.
Experimental design: Methods
Is the convergent validity meant with the association of patient characteristics with both GSES and DMSES in line 203? If yes, mention explicitly the convergent validity. If no, what kind of validity measure is referred to.

Results
Table 1. Education: the different forms of education in percentage don’t add up to an exact 100%.
Validity of the findings: Okay
Additional comments: Compliments to the authors. They accurately addressed the comments of the reviewers. Some minor and last remarks are made to finish the article for successful 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: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE AMONG THAIS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES: A MULTICENTER STUDY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Lines 171-172

‘Patient characteristics were summarized using means and standard deviations, for continuous variables, and counts and percentages for categorical measures.’

My comment in the last review
‘This sentence is poorly formulated. Very confusing.’

The authors’ reaction
‘Sorry, we have to disagree. This sentence is very clear and is almost a copy and paste from the hundreds of other ‘statistical analysis’ sections that I have written in the past. It is grammatically correct and in no way convoluted. It simply states that the appropriate statistics were used for patient characteristics measured using different measurement scales (means and standard deviations for continuous variables, and counts and percentages, for categorical variables). I am not assuming that it is correct simply because it has been acceptable in the past, but simply because it is a very common way of phrasing which statistics are used in the ‘descriptive statistics’ subsection of a results section (very often Table 1). Not only do I teach my students (as an academic biostatistician) to state how they use their summary statistics in this way, but this is the way almost all researchers in the clinical sciences are taught to do this.’

My reaction to the authors’ reaction
‘I stick to my claim that there is a linguistic flaw in the sentence. Simply leave out the comma between ‘deviations’ and ‘for’, then the sentence becomes clear.’

Sub-chapter statistical analyses (Lines 170-200)

In my last review, I made to comments regarding this sub-chapter. Unfortunately, in my last review the reference of the first comment to this sub-chapter has been lost when rearranging my original review according to the PeerJ-Guidelines. Therefore, I want to repeat them now with explicit reference to this sub-chapter:

1)	‘The authors should divide the whole sub-chapter into more than one paragraph.
2)	Before describing a statistical procedure, the authors should mention the purpose for which this procedure is applied. Especially, this includes giving a clear overview of the criteria applied for judging validity. Still more especially, this includes some information they have provided in their comments to my previous review.
3)	A part of the text within this sub-chapter already refers to results. The authors should formulate their methods part so that there is no need to refer to results and present the results in the results part.’

The authors comment to my first comment was that they could not assign this comment to text in their manuscript. They were right. Now they can.

The authors reply to the second comment was:
‘We do acknowledge that our statistical analysis section is methodologically dense, but
beyond providing details one might find in a psychometrics or statistics textbook we had already done exactly what the reviewer is suggesting (providing the reasoning for each analytical step). Furthermore, we have not really ‘left the beaten track’ of what represents standard psychometric validation practice.
In the statistical analysis section, every method we use is in explained in terms of its use, and where appropriate, criteria (e.g. cut-offs) are provided for judging validity. Specifically:

1.	Internal consistency reliability - > Cronbach’s alpha > 0.8
2.	Determining the number of factors -> Exploratory factor analysis with parallel analysis
3.	Test the structural validity of GSE in the Thai T2D population -> A one factor measurement model based on an unweight least squares confirmatory factor analysis -> successfully fits (=>structural validity)  if TLI, CFI and AGFI >0.9 and RSMEA<0.08
4.	Further evidence of construct validity based on the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity
5.	Divergent validity (GSE from DMSES) based on Disattenuated correlation coefficient < 0.85
6.	Convergence between GSE and DMSES (overall scale and subscales) based on Pearson’s correlation coefficient
7.	In what manner GSE and DMSE associate with (distribute across) important patient characteristics -> Ordinal logistic regression.’

My comment to the authors’ comments
I try to rephrase my former comment. I would have liked to read some sentences as to how the construct of general self-efficacy, i.e. the construct to be measured, implies the validity criteria used by the authors. In other words, I would have liked to read some sentences why and how the statistics applied by the authors reflect the extent to which GSE measures general self-efficacy and thereby are criteria for investigating validity. There are no such sentences. The whole sub-chapter does not convey the impression that the authors have thought much about problems of this kind. Accordingly, there is much statistics, but only little relevant knowledge produced by using this statistics.

The authors reply to the third reply was

‘Actually the only time we mention ‘results’ in our methods section is when they come from other studies, and these results are used to justify our methodological choices. However, we see in one particular case there is ambiguity (the last sentence of the DMSES subsection):

“Sangruangake et al. (2017) not only showed that DMSES was valid in Thai adults with T2D, but the overall scale and several of its subscales were highly predictive of concurrent HbA1c control. For instance, the overall DMSES was shown to have a sensitivity and specificity for predicting HbA1c control of 81% and 84%, respectively.”

We see some of the results of the Sangruangake et al. (2017) were split over two sentences, but the reference was only included in the first. We have now reiterated the citation in the second sentence:

“Sangruangake et al. (2017) not only showed that DMSES was valid in Thai adults with T2D, but the overall scale and several of its subscales were highly predictive of concurrent HbA1c control. For instance, the overall DMSES was shown to have a sensitivity and specificity for predicting HbA1c control of 81\% and 84\%, respectively (Sangruangake et al., 2017).”’

My comment to the authors’ reply
I am sorry. My comment was too unspecific. The sentence in the methods section that refers to own results is ‘ As the parallel analysis demonstrates a single factor had an eigenvector significantly greater than 1 (see Supplementary Figure 1),…’.
Experimental design: Background section in the abstract; lines 29-32
For example, it’s unclear whether self-efficacy is modifiable through intervention, or whether it is a relatively stable personality trait. A way of investigating this is to examine the nature of the relationship among the domain-specific Diabetes Management Self-Efficacy Scale(DMSES), and the arguably more stable general self-efficacy, as measured by the General Self-Efficacy scale(GSE).

The comment that I made in the last review regarding this topic was

‘The interrelation between two variables gives no information as to which of these two variables can be better affected by an intervention!’
The authors should omit all considerations into this direction!

The authors’ reply was:
‘We take the reviewers point here. However, to suggest that all research is purely empirical and that researchers should never speculate about the downstream implications of their findings (or the findings of others) unless those findings have already been proven elsewhere is likely to severely constrain what can be done. Speculation where (most) readers can agree on the plausibility of explanations is a very important part of research, especially research concerned with psycho-social elements of health.

It is clear the reviewer does not like words like ‘logical’, however, it seems much more likely that an intervention involving disease-specific education and disese-specific self-care practice (for example) is likely to impact disease-specific self-efficacy

Finally (and perhaps most importantly), we don’t make the claim that the inter-relationship between GSE and DMSE tell us which is better effected by an intervention. It is important to note that several RCTs have been run (by others) to gauge the efficacy of various diabetes management self-efficacy programs, and we are in no way (and at no time) recommending that interventions be designed to improve. Instead, we suggest that it is possible that the efficacy of a diabetes management self-efficacy intervention (which are currently run by others) on individual patients may be explored in terms of that patient’s general self-efficacy. These two objectives (or statements) are worlds apart.’

My comment to the authors’ reply
‘Regarding the first paragraph: I do think that speculation plays an important role in science. Among other things, it can be used to derive research questions and, thereby, to instigate empirical research. However, it should not be used as a substantiation of an empirical method. This is what the authors implicitly do in lines 29-32.

Regarding the second paragraph: I do not see that this reply relates to my comment.

Regarding the third paragraph: In lines 29-32, the authors do make the claim that the inter-relationship between GSE and DMSE tell us which is better effected by an intervention.

Conclusion: I stick to my comment that the paper would improve if the authors omitted all parts of the manuscript in which they suggest that the research presented in their paper gives any information as to which of the two variables can better be affected by interventions.
Validity of the findings: .
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE GENERAL SELF-EFFICACY SCALE AMONG THAIS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES: A MULTICENTER STUDY
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Language
Line 31: insert a space between Scale and (DMSES)

Line 32: insert a space between scale and (GSE)

Line 51: alter ‘self management’ into ‘self-management’

Line 89: alter ‘Bijl, J. van der et al.,’ into ‘van der Bijl et al.,’

Line 91: alter the dot after ‘circumstances’ into a space

Line 110: delete ‘Luszczynska et al. (2005)’

Line 113: alter ‘treatment-self efficacy’ into ‘treatment self-efficacy'

Lines 133 and 134: alter ‘In our study, 749 patients who had been diagnosed with T2D within the last five years were...’ into ‘In our study 749 patients, who had been diagnosed with T2D within the last five years, were...

Line 139: alter ‘Scale’ into ‘scale’

Line 162: alter in both cases ‘Scale’ into ‘scale’

Line 177 and 178: ‘along with many other laboratory measurements’. This is not relevant. Mention only those characteristics which are reported in Table 1.

Line 215: alter ‘characteristic’ into ‘characteristics’. This is also the case at the top of Table 1. And check if the patient characteristics in Table 1 are all consequently presented in capitals. For example see ‘Waist Circumference’ and ‘Marital status’

The marginal note of Table 1: insert a space between ‘n’ and ‘(%)’, and also between ‘mean’ and ‘(SD)’

Line 237: alter ‘diabetes-management’ into ‘diabetes management’

Lines 239 and 240: both lines start with ‘Figure 1’. Delete the second Figure 1 and continue line 239 with ‘and’

Line 248: alter ‘General and Diabetes-management' into ‘general and diabetes management’

Line 250: insert a space between ‘Table 3’ and ‘shows’

Table 3: check if the patient characteristics in Table 3 are all consequently presented in capitals, and at the head of the Table alter ‘General self efficacy’ and ‘Diabetes management self efficacy’ into ‘General self-efficacy' and ‘Diabetes management self-efficacy'

Figure 1: alter ‘diabetes management-self efficacy’ into ‘diabetes management self-efficacy', and alter 'scale’ into ‘scales’

Line 281: insert ‘a’ between ‘be’ and ‘strong’

Line 347: alter ‘Hypertension and Dyslipidemia’ into ‘hypertension and dyslipidemia’
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: Some minor language remarks have been made as the last step 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: LAND USE/LAND COVER CHANGES IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THE CHITWAN ANNAPURNA LANDSCAPE, NEPAL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. It is a much-needed study providing baseline information on the status of land cover and changes over time. From the title, I understood that your study covered the entire Chitwan Annapurna Landscape but looking at the map, you only covered a small portion of the CHAL. Make it clear in the title and study area section.
The manuscript needs thorough English editing for clarity.
Experimental design: The study used the standard method for land use land cover mapping. However, it is not well described the basis for the eight land cover classes and how the ground control points were collected within these land cover classes. Some of the class such as mixed forest represents different species combination in different areas (lowland and hills). How it is represented in the mapping has not been defined well. Methods section does not say anything about the subset analysis (Padampur, Byas and other areas), how they were defined and what was the logic behind those analyses. The results of the sub-sets can be presented in a table in summarized form. The figures from 7 to 16 can go in the supplementary materials.
Validity of the findings: The discussion section needs more work. Start with the highlights of the results and discuss about the possible causes and explanation of the changes in the forest cover in the past 20 years. You can also do a comparison between different sites where separate analysis was run. Some ideas appear abruptly in the conclusion section but it is not discussed in the previous sections.
Additional comments: Some minor comments are as follow

L46: LULCC can be positive or negative for forest loss. LULCC does not cause the biodiversity loss but forest loss cause, please correct.
L51-53: Too long sentence, restructure for clarity
L54-56: All are not reliable, it depends on quality of data
L86-87: There is updated eco-regions, please see Dinerstein et al. 2017 (https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/6/534/3102935), and it is not WWF only.
L110: successive is not appropriate
L113-114: Google earth is a platform, does not develop maps.
L134-136: Please provide information which layers were staked (all or some specific bands).
L142: How these points were collected? Did you look for specific number of points for the different land use classes or collected randomly/systematically?
L146: Provide details of pGIS, how many group discussions, whether conducted randomly or systematically? How you covered the study area?
L179-183: The sentence is too long and not clear what it means.
L186: The topographic maps do not differentiate the forest types, how did you used it for accuracy assessment for various forest types?
L217: Is this result for 2020 or …?
L222-225: mentioned only six land cover types, what happened with other two?
L232-260: Not mentioned anything about the separate analysis in the methods section. How and why did you conducted this analysis? I think this can be summarized in one table.


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

Input:
Title: DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL AREAS OF EFFORT IN TERMS OF FORCE AND FORCE-VELOCITY BASED ON THE FUNCTIONAL STATE OF THE NEUROMUSCULAR SYSTEM IN THE TRAINING OF ELITE FEMALE JUDOKAS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thanks for sending through the manuscript entitled " Determining the optimal areas of effort in terms of force and force-velocity based on the functional state of the neuromuscular system in the training of elite female judokas".
I went through the manuscript and I found that overall it is suitable for publishing in the Peer J, but I have some major methodological concerns and other issues that the authors need to address before I can accept the manuscript for publication.
The problem is the lack of proper familiarity with the English language and recommend that the entire article should be corrected by someone who is a proficient editor.

Abstract
• The info should be better presented as to raise the interest of the readers. The more data the authors give, the more difficult the abstract is to read and the interest to be risen.

Introduction
• The introduction is incomplete and the issue is not well clarified and also the need for research is not clear. The rationale for examining this topic should be mentioned more clearly in this section. The article innovation should be also presented in the Introduction. Describe what the research gap of the paper is and what is new. Please describe the links between the research gap and the goal of the article. At least the reader should be given a background on how each of the identified factors are important and informed on the novelty of this study.

• The second sentence of the first paragraph contains too many ”of”, which make it difficult to read and understand. This is the case for many parts of the article (for example, starting with lines 103-104… ending with 567-569) as well as other mistakes (line 114 …”the more important”?)

• Lines 136-138 are not enough to make your study of sound scientifically importance and it is the exact title of this article also. Please provide a subsection here with the title RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AIMS OF THE STUDY or RESEARCH HYPOTHESES, which would be more convincing about the importance of the study.
Experimental design: Participants and methods

• It is not clear how many female judokas were involved in the study, were there 21 or 44? Were those from the three groups (I, II, III) the same with those in EG and CG? First there are mentioned 44 cycles and only 12 training cycles and 12 competitive ones.

• Authors should consider trying to make explanations less boring and shorter here. A table or illustration of some kind would be more attractive and easier to follow.
Validity of the findings: The Results section should be reorganised as to follow each hypothesis/research question or objective. Authors need to write key findings focusing on each one of these after being stated.

Table 3 contains groups A and B (as it is in Table 2) but the explanations are about groups C and D.

The Discussion section is centred on the correctional system.  Is it of great importance? If so, this should be the central idea of the article and the title as the discussion focuses on numbers of corrections along the cycles.

It would be better to have seen more use of terms like 'originality' and 'significance'. Identify what is new in this study that may benefit readers or how it may advance existing knowledge or create new knowledge on this subject. There should be a clear conclusion on why the research findings are significant for this topic and how could be used to help athletes in this situation.

Only when reading lines 576-578 in the Conclusion section readers can understand the intention to create an optimal model of F and F-V training efforts derived from NMS.
Research limitations and existing problems are not presented.
Additional comments: Thank you for the opportunity to read this work. This is an interesting topic that can be considered by readers. Nevertheless, there are some concerns with the present manuscript that would need to be addressed for the paper to be able to achieve its potential.
Though the paper seems properly organised, it is not and easy to follow. Some issues are not clearly defined or presented (e.g., hypotheses/research questions, procedure), which makes it difficult to understand the various parts of the manuscript.
The problem is the lack of proper familiarity with the English language and recommend that the entire article should be corrected by someone who is a proficient editor.
The introduction is quite incomplete and the issue is not well clarified and also the need for research is not clear.
In the method and measurement section, the work process is very incomprehensible and incomplete and makes it difficult to understand.
The conclusion section is very weak and the reasons presented are not well compared with previous literature and other articles.


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: DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL AREAS OF EFFORT IN TERMS OF FORCE AND FORCE-VELOCITY BASED ON THE FUNCTIONAL STATE OF THE NEUROMUSCULAR SYSTEM IN THE TRAINING OF ELITE FEMALE JUDOKAS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Although the manuscript is mainly nicely written in English, I suggest rechecking the grammar.
Literature references and sufficient field background/context are sufficiently provided.
Tables 2 and 3 have to be modified. I suggest removing the variables as “ES r” ,“t”,”confidence interval of the difference”. And p value should be written only as “p value”, “Sig. two-tailed” should be deleted.
The quality of figures 3 and 4 should be improved.
Figure 3. “Inner femoris muscle” – Using Latin names is suggested. Check elsewhere in the manuscript.
Raw data is partly shared.
Experimental design: The research is original and follows the aims and scope of the journal.
The entire methods section needs to be rechecked and reviewed. Data regarding the number of participants and the duration of the study seem quite confusing.
Validity of the findings: The conclusion should be shortened by mentioning only the most important findings of the current study.
Additional comments: By reading the abstract, it is unclear how many participants are included in the study (21 or 44). Moreover, the authors in methods have mentioned 4 groups A, C, B, and D, of which A and C are labeled as experimental and B and D as control groups. Why do the groups have to be in this order? Is there a particular reason? Then, in the results, the authors stated 1st group results, which is unclear since the mentioned groups were A, C, B, and D. Abstract needs to be modified.
No strengths and limitations are presented in this study.
Ln33 – Why are insignificant results presented within the abstract?
Ln44 – “The F increased considerably” – Only statistically significant results should be presented in the abstract.
Ln64 – “SJFT” – Is this test used in this study as a method? There is no sense in describing some tests extensively if it is not related to the aim of the research.
Ln82 – “(e.g. Busko and Nowak, 2008) – Why “eg.”?
Ln83 – “in the judo” – “the” is not necessary. It can be deleted.
Ln113-115 – “All this is all” – sounds incorrect. Please recheck the meaning of the sentence and modify it. You are stating that women have become full participants in various competitions of the highest level. The question is, is this something that happened recently?
Ln115 – “results obtained by them in a number of sports almost equal those of men.” - What kind of the results? This statement is quite confusing.
Ln120,121 – This sentence should be rephrased.
Ln126-130 – Why do you think these studies are important to be mentioned in the introduction?
Ln131 – “local scientific literature” – What do you mean by local scientific literature?! The literature is either scientific or not. Please clarify the term local. “number of works dedicated to one or another aspect of female judokas’ sports training.” – This should be rephrased.
Ln143-145 – cg.I, CMS, MS – these categories are not sufficiently explained. As far as I know, judokas are categorized according to belts. What are the criteria for categorization? Please provide an explanation.
Ln146 –“23 – 32 years old” – No demographic characteristics of judokas presented. I suggest presenting the mean and standard deviation. Additionally, there is no information regarding their weight categories available.
Ln169 – “gastrocnemius muscles, rectus femoris muscle, thigh biceps, arms biceps and triceps.” – I suggest using Latin names of muscle. Please check everywhere throughout the manuscript.
Ln167,177, 188 – In the methods, the three tests were listed: Tmax, Fy, and J. However, the protocols are later not explained in the same order. I suggest correcting it.
Ln213 – “shoulder throws” – Are there similar throwing techniques in judo? Why have authors chosen wrestling shoulder throws?
Ln237 – experimental design – This section should be written in a more understandable way. Inserting schemes/ photos of the protocol could help readers clearly understand the study design.
Ln285. Please rewrite as: Independent-Samples T-test.
Ln383,384 – “from de la 510 kg/s” – What is the meaning of “de la”?
Ln442,443 – “…during the first year of the experiment.” – Again, it has to be clarified what the total duration of the experiment was?
Ln490 – “vibrations” – Please check if this term is correct.
Ln491 – “izokinetic”  - isokinetic.
Ln545,546 – Please explain why this is not defined within the methods section?
Ln576,577,578  – Needs to be rephrased.


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: DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL AREAS OF EFFORT IN TERMS OF FORCE AND FORCE-VELOCITY BASED ON THE FUNCTIONAL STATE OF THE NEUROMUSCULAR SYSTEM IN THE TRAINING OF ELITE FEMALE JUDOKAS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for providing this comprehensive and hard work.
The authors have presented an improved version of the manuscript.

The introduction provides a proper background of the topic. The manuscript is well-structured, and it is easy to follow the sections.
The quality of the images is good enough, but I don’t know if the reviewing version has lower resolution than the final version. If not, images should have better resolution in its final size.
It seems that the English is technically correct, though some statements are too long.
Lines 302 and 372 contain some green letters.
Experimental design: The experimental design meets the scope of the journal, and the hypothesis is well-defined and its relevant to the community.
Methods are described detailed enough.
Validity of the findings: The results and the conclusions are quite interesting and well-discussed. All data are provided.

The authors have adequately addressed all my comments. I have no further suggestions.
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: DETERMINING THE OPTIMAL AREAS OF EFFORT IN TERMS OF FORCE AND FORCE-VELOCITY BASED ON THE FUNCTIONAL STATE OF THE NEUROMUSCULAR SYSTEM IN THE TRAINING OF ELITE FEMALE JUDOKAS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: OK
Experimental design: Ok
Validity of the findings: OK
Additional comments: Ln177 – rephrase please. For example: “Women’s training should be planned differently…”
Conclusion – should be rewritten in a shorter form. Present only the most important information here (example: no need for explaining the whole study design in this section=.
Ln838 – “achievd” – achieved.
Ln839 – limitations – please consider placing the study limitations right after 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: THE SUPERIOR RESPONSE SPEED OF TABLE TENNIS PLAYERS IS ASSOCIATED WITH PROACTIVE INHIBITORY CONTROL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The captions on figure 1 and 2 may be too small for the final print.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: no comment
Additional comments: Authors start with the observation that open skill athletes have faster RT in the sport specific
manner. Previous studies fail to show whether this superior performance can be generalized
to other non-sport contexts. Here, authors came up with the hypothesis that the simple RT
task cannot account for the faster response of athletes because of their supremacy can shine
in unpredictable environments. Then, what’s so special about this unpredictable sport
situations? Authors suggests, being able to block un-desirable responses when many options
are on the table may be a contributing factor for superior response speed of athletes. Thus,
as a way investigate this proactive inhibitory control ability, the CTOA paradigm (a warning
signal with variable SOA) during the RT test was adopted.

The main finding of this study showed that the RTs of the experimental group were
significantly shorter than those of the control group in no-cue/mixed, CTOA-100, and CTOA-
200 conditions. This selective difference in proactive inhibitory control seems to explain the
characteristics of athletes described in the introduction section, and provide an evidence that
this characteristic is observable in non-sports specific context supporting the hypothesis. The
fact that performances requiring reactive inhibitory control didn’t show group differences re-
confirms the results are proactive inhibitory control specific. Finally, possible cognitive
mechanisms that may contribute such group difference was suggested.

In short, this manuscript is well prepared, and the experiments are well prepared/executed.
The results are almost exactly what the hypothesis expected – therefore there is not much
room for discussion. I believe the manuscript is ready to publish without much revision.

Here are some very minor concerns that authors may consider reflecting.

- The overall hypothesis & discussion are heavily rooted on the assumption that the
CTOA experimental paradigm is the index of proactive disinhibition control. Thus, it
may be useful to provide some more details regarding the nature of disinhibition in this
task. In this sense, Fig 1 and 2 is useful but some more written descriptions would be
informative, too.

- At times, the expressions are not quite natural, or have vague expressions.

- Did the subjects respond to either Left or Right target with one finger press movement
option? If so, was there any RT difference between those stimuli?

- Since this study was about the superior ability of athletes, a little more discussion
regarding the reason for such group difference would be beneficial. In the abstract,
authors mentioned this may due to the training or experience. You may elaborate this
point.


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

Input:
Title: THE SUPERIOR RESPONSE SPEED OF TABLE TENNIS PLAYERS IS ASSOCIATED WITH PROACTIVE INHIBITORY CONTROL
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: -Authors are encouraged to cite and discuss more recent studies which have already explored the relation between RT and proactive inhibitory control. (e.g. Bianco, V., Di Russo, F., Perri, R. L., & Berchicci, M. (2017). Different proactive and reactive action control in fencers’ and boxers’ brain. Neuroscience, 343, 260-268.; Bianco, V., Berchicci, M., Perri, R. L., Quinzi, F., & Di Russo, F. (2017). Exercise-related cognitive effects on sensory-motor control in athletes and drummers compared to non-athletes and other musicians. Neuroscience, 360, 39-47.)
-In the introduction section, authors claim that they chose table tennis player as the most representative open-skill sport… this is not true, since also volleyball, tennis, fencing and boxing are for instance appropriate open-skill sports… therefore, authors are encouraged to expand this literature with recent studies e.g. (Montuori, S., D'Aurizio, G., Foti, F., Liparoti, M., Lardone, A., Pesoli, M., ... & Sorrentino, P. (2019). Executive functioning profiles in elite volleyball athletes: Preliminary results by a sport-specific task switching protocol. Human movement science, 63, 73-81; Lucia, S., Bianco, V., Boccacci, L., & Di Russo, F. (2022). Effects of a Cognitive-Motor Training on Anticipatory Brain Functions and Sport Performance in Semi-Elite Basketball Players. Brain Sciences, 12(1), 68.; Koch, P., & Krenn, B. (2021). Executive functions in elite athletes–Comparing open-skill and closed-skill sports and considering the role of athletes' past involvement in both sport categories. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 55, 101925.).
-Accordingly, authors clearly state why they the selected table tennis players instead of other open-skill sports.
-It is not clear to me the reasons behind the choice of a cue–target onset asynchrony (CTOA) to study proactive inhibitory control. Authors should acknowledge other tasks commonly used to investigate proactive inhibitory control as for instance the go/nogo or the stop signal task (see he already cited Aron, A. R. (2011). From reactive to proactive and selective control: developing a richer model for stopping inappropriate responses. Biological psychiatry, 69(12), e55-e68.)
Experimental design: -Authors should provide an accurate power analysis which justify that the sample size is appropriate for the RM-ANOVA design of the study
-Why the authors did not measure physical activity level? How can we be fully sure that the effects between athletes and non-athletes are not a consequence of different physical activity levels (Erickson, K. I., Hillman, C. H., & Kramer, A. F. (2015). Physical activity, brain, and cognition. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 4, 27-32.)? I believe that this might represent a limitation of the study since the levels of physical activity and aerobic fitness were not even estimated.
- It is not clear how this behavioral task performed by table-tennis players filled the gap in literature. Accordingly, one other main limitation is the absence of a closed skill group or of a different open-skill sport to compare the results with.
Validity of the findings: -Authors should acknowledge the limitations of the study in a dedicated paragraph.
-Open skill sports include many sports with huge differences in technical, tactical and strategic demands. This might influence the motor-skill experience in different ways as an effect of neuroplasticity (Voss, M. W., Kramer, A. F., Basak, C., Prakash, R. S., & Roberts, B. (2010). Are expert athletes ‘expert’in the cognitive laboratory? A meta‐analytic review of cognition and sport expertise. Applied cognitive psychology, 24(6), 812-826.). Could it be more appropriate to properly refer to the participants of the present study? And then it would seem correct to justify results in terms of open skill experience. Therefore, I would suggest to mitigate in extending present finding to all open skills.
-Being a behavioral study, the authors might suggest further replications of the task coupled with neurophysiological measurements.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE VARIABILITY OF EMOTIONS, PHYSICAL COMPLAINTS, INTENTION, AND SELF-EFFICACY: AN ECOLOGICAL MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT STUDY IN OLDER ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: Clear English is used.
No background or justification is provided for studying older adults (besides the claim that is was not performed before). This population has various characteristics that should be described, relevant to the intervention in test here. Motivation is widely studied in older adults, as well as effects of physical activity on pain, cognition and emotions. Even methodologically, older adults are the age group with highest within-participant variability (that is seen in the results) and should have been expected. The introduction is missing an important part, as I see it.
What were the study hypotheses? This part is missing.
Please find more comments in the attached file.
Experimental design: I was surprised to find out that no information regarding physical activity was collected, hence correlation with measured variables did not receive validation of relevancy and importance. Eventually, I remained with these questions: Is it important to distinguish stable and non-stable emotions? Along this categorization, which are relevant to health behavior and how? What are the practical implications of the results? I can see the potential of contribution but I feel that the problem should have been better explained, the population should have received relevant elaboration in the introduction and discussion and the implications should have been more clearly stated.
Please find more comments in the attached file.
Validity of the findings: Since there were no hypotheses, I'm afraid I was not able to evaluate the results section properly.
only descriptive statistics were discussed.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: THE VARIABILITY OF EMOTIONS, PHYSICAL COMPLAINTS, INTENTION, AND SELF-EFFICACY: AN ECOLOGICAL MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT STUDY IN OLDER ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I would like to thank the authors for presenting this interesting paper on a highly relevant and timely research question. I enjoyed reading the paper which is written in clear English.

Regarding the "Basic Reporting", I would like to bring up two major points that would improve the manuscript very significantly:

a) The authors do not cover the recent literature in this field. For example, solely the within-subject association of mood/affective states/well-being and physical activity and its relevance for health behavior change has been researched by numerous ambulatory assessment studies (including the elderly as a target group, see e.g.: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=physical+activity%2C+mood%2C+ambulatory+assessment&btnG=) - here I suggest the authors to include more of this prior works and their findings into their introduction and discussion section. For example line 126 "no previous studies examined" => see, e.g., https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12966-015-0272-7

b) The authors claim to research "The variability [...] TOWARDS physical activity", however, they do not include physical activity as a outcome variable of interest into their multi-level models. They "only" investigate the variabilty of these constructs on different resolutions. While the latter one is certainly the first step when reseraching "The variability [...] TOWARDS physical activity" it remains to be discussed whether this is enough to state the term "TOWARDS physical activity". So, if the authors did assess data on physical activity within their study, I would strongly encourage them to include models with PA as outcome being predicted by "emotions, physical complaints, intention, and self efficacy" into their manuscript. This would highly benfit their research approach. If these kind of data had not been captured, I would suggest to tone down the argumentation "TOWARDS physical activity" throughout the paper since this is then "only" based on theoretical assumptions not being supported by the evidence provided in the paper itself. This also concerns naming the variables "determinants" throughout the manuscript.
Experimental design: Table 2: The table would benefit from additional data presentation, e.g., skewness, kurtosis, minimum, maximun (range) etc.

Table 3: Which differences of weekdays are statistically significant?

Table 4: Presenting data for other cut-offs would be helpful, you could also include histograms here

Did you think about conducting a multi-level factor analysis on this data? This might unravel more in depth insights on how this data is clustered.

Figure 1: Since within-person changes are especially important in relation to PA, you could additionally plot this data after within-subject centering of the variables
Validity of the findings: Discussion, line 319: The authors suggest research to create a cut-off value. In multi-level modelling, even a low within-subject variance is seen as sufficient to model within-subject associations. On which basis would you built such a cut-off value, how would you derive it? A broder discussion both from a methodolocial/statistical and from the health behavior / content-related side building upon the current state of the art literature would be helpful here.

Line 376: For the compliance reported authors could refer to current ambulatory assessment guidelines to set them into context: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=ambulatory+assessment+guidelines&btnG=.

In general, the discussion would benefit from a restructuring and a more concise writing.
Additional comments: Minor points:

a) It would be helpful for readers to have statistics included to the results section of the abstract.
b) line 294 "fewer" => was it fewer or less strong emotions: qualtiy vs. quantity
c) overall, the discussion lacks citations for many of the topics discussed, e.g., for geolocation tracking (line 358): https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=physical+activity%2C+mood%2C+ambulatory+assessment%2C+geolocation+tracking&btnG=&oq=physical+activity%2C+mood%2C+ambulatory+assessment%2C+geolocation+track

x) Suggestions for language improvements:
"in reality" => in real-life
"time-based EMA" => EMA
line 343 "will" => is this evidenced? Here "may" could be a more appropriate term
line 370 "cannot" => better: traditional questionnaires come with retrospective biases


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

Input:
Title: THE VARIABILITY OF EMOTIONS, PHYSICAL COMPLAINTS, INTENTION, AND SELF-EFFICACY: AN ECOLOGICAL MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT STUDY IN OLDER ADULTS
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. I believe that this will be of great interest to the readers as well as researchers in the field. This well-written article focused on time-dependent variability of emotions, physical complaints, intention, and self-efficacy in older adults. Below are some comments for the authors to consider to improve the clarity of the manuscript:

1.	The Introduction provides a great overview of the relevance for the need of developing further dynamic within-subject frameworks. I would like to read the author's opinion about what is necessary to create such a dynamic framework. In other words, is it possible to state in general terms what are the characteristics of a dynamic within-subject model/theory?
Experimental design: The manuscripts provide original research on a high technical and ethical standard with sufficient information for replication. Author´s may consider the following comments:

2.	The authors provided almost all relevant data when using EMA. However, I suggest double-checking the STROBE Checklist for Reporting EMA studies (10.2196/jmir.4954) or further recommendations (https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000473) to add information (e.g., compliance rate per participant).
3.	Could the authors provide some information about psychometric properties? (e.g., within-subject reliability of the used items)
4.	The description of the analyses could be improved. If I am right, the authors calculated the Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of a 3-Level data structure by separating the variance into three parts. I would suggest presenting the formula of the calculated variances.
5.	Did the authors check some model assumptions?
Validity of the findings: The findings are interesting and helpful for researchers while planing within-subject interventions. Author´s may consider the following comments:

6.	I was wondering whether the time-depending determinants could also be relevant for sedentary behavior. Especially since older adults are prone to spend a lot of time sedentary, it might be worth discussing that future interventions, as well as dynamic frameworks, should also take this into account.
7.	Line 380-384: I would suggest reporting no new results within the discussion section and moving this part to the results section.
8.	The results about the participants who gave the same answer to the EMA question for more than 90% is really interesting and I like the discussion about a potential threshold. Did the authors check if there are potential links with participant characteristics (e.g., age, own smartphone vs. study smartphone, smartphone experiences)?
Additional comments: no comment


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

Input:
Title: THE VARIABILITY OF EMOTIONS, PHYSICAL COMPLAINTS, INTENTION, AND SELF-EFFICACY: AN ECOLOGICAL MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT STUDY IN OLDER ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: I found great improvements in the reporting.
Experimental design: I believe the goal of the study should be more precise, stating the exploratory nature of the design.
Validity of the findings: Here again, if hypotheses are precise and no expectation is made regarding physical activity, then findings will be valid.
Additional comments: Thank you for your thorough work, the MS has definitely improved and much more suitable for publication now.
Two issues are still concerning me:
1. I still feel that the reader should be informed of the study goals and hypotheses more accurately, excluding the physical activity background (should receive less volume) and exploratory nature should be stated (since the results part is otherwise very weak).
2. Stating that chronic diseases accompany aging and that the population is aging is not enough as motivation for the study, I'm afraid. I think a more accurate reference should be made for the difficulties and potential benefit of the tested issues.


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

Input:
Title: THE VARIABILITY OF EMOTIONS, PHYSICAL COMPLAINTS, INTENTION, AND SELF-EFFICACY: AN ECOLOGICAL MOMENTARY ASSESSMENT STUDY IN OLDER ADULTS
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: I have no concerns. The authors addressed all issues adequately.
Experimental design: I have no concerns. The authors addressed all issues adequately.
Validity of the findings: I have no concerns. The authors addressed all issues adequately.
Additional comments: I have no concerns. The authors addressed all issues adequately.


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: INFLUENCE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT FOR HEALTHY MOTHERS AND THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN COMPLIANCE WITH WHO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT AND EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING IN JAPAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The article is clearly written in professional, unambiguous language. It treats an actual problem: the difficulty to guarantee breastfeeding support during Covid-19 pandemic.
Experimental design: There are some fundamental concerns with the experimental design and with the analysis. The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion and to make this article acceptable for publication.
Material and Methods
Study design:
•	Please clarify why you target sample size at 1,000 women.
•	I suggest to describe the sampling strategy or cite the journal in which it has been described
•	Line 152. Please specify the reference that shows why “the policy of mother–infant separation has not changed as of this writing”.
Infant feeding status:
•	According to WHO definition it is not correct to identify the infant feeding status (e.g. "exclusively breastfeeding") upon 24 hours feeding modality.
•	Newborns’ age at the moment of the survey "younger than 5 months" is too generic, it needs more explanations. Consider the mean age at the moment of the survey.
I would suggest to detail better the entire paragraph or to remove it from the study as it do not add conclusive data.
Validity of the findings: Analysis
Data on Infant feeding status need to be modified according to previous notes.

Results
Characteristics of participants
Data on Infant feeding status need to be modified according to previous notes.
Line 230 I would suggest to erase “although”
Lines 265-286 detail better the paragraphs or remove it from the study according to previous notes

Discussion
Line 295 modify according to previous notes
Line 317 please you cannot  use “exclusive breastfeeding” in this case.

Tab 1 and Tab 2
Modify explanation and Tabs according to previous notes.

Tab 3, Tab 4 and Tab 5
Modify explanation and Tabs according to previous notes or remove them as they are not necessary if you remove data on infant feeding status.
Additional comments: The definition of “Exclusively Breastfeeding” is not used in correct way. This affects all data about “Infant feeding status”. This means the conclusions put forward by this manuscript are not warranted and I cannot approve the manuscript in this form. I suggest to focus attention on breastfeeding support and not on infant feeding status as the data the authors describe do not support any conclusion on infant feeding


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: INFLUENCE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT FOR HEALTHY MOTHERS AND THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN COMPLIANCE WITH WHO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT AND EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING IN JAPAN
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: In this study, the authors examined maternal breastfeeding intention and professional breastfeeding support before and during the pandemic in Japan and analyzed any differences. They also further assessed if compliance with WHO recommendations for infant feeding support was effective in promoting exclusive breastfeeding during the pandemic. This study is interesting, but it has errors in the interpretation of results, the two groups may not be comparable, and there was very low response rate (22.9%).
English can be improved.
I suggest including a paragraph on the behavior of the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan, i.e., when the first case appeared, what was the incidence and prevalence of COVID-19, were health services affected or not, etc.
Experimental design: The Methods section needs more information
Data collection was started on 15 October 2020 and ended on 25 October 2020. This can lead to bias, as the survey seeks retrospective evidence.
Include the STROBE checklist. Supplemental information.
Lines 124-136. To complement this paragraph I suggest including the STROBE flowchart as Figure 1.
Describe how the survey was validated.
was a pilot test carried out?
Validity of the findings: Results
The interpretation of some results is incorrect. There can be no reduction if the statistical test is not significant.
There was no significant difference in likely to intend to breastfeed during the pandemic (82.2% before vs. 75.6% during the pandemic, p = 0.120).
There was no significant difference en the average number of breastfeeding support steps received was lower during the pandemic (3.24 before vs. 3.01 during the pandemic, p = 0.069), and could not talk with friends about infant care and feeding (10.4% before the pandemic vs. 15.2% during the pandemic; p = 0.169).
The main findings of the study are summarized at lines 278-286. I suggest including this result in the Abstract. In the other cases there are no significant differences.

Discussion
There are two limitations that should be discussed: 1) The main limitation is that the two groups may not be comparable, and 2) very low response rate (22.9%).
Discuss the strengths of the study and the implications for public health.
Additional comments: Abstract. Correct interpretation of results, and include the Conclusion section.


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: INFLUENCE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT FOR HEALTHY MOTHERS AND THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN COMPLIANCE WITH WHO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT AND EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING IN JAPAN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This second version of the manuscript is correct. The important points of concern have been
clarified and fixed and a positive action can be taken.
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: INFLUENCE OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ON BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT FOR HEALTHY MOTHERS AND THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN COMPLIANCE WITH WHO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BREASTFEEDING SUPPORT AND EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING IN JAPAN
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comments
Experimental design: No comments
Validity of the findings: No comments
Additional comments: No 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: POTENTIAL AND FUNCTIONAL PREDICTION OF SIX CIRCULAR RNAS AS DIAGNOSTIC MARKERS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors were used clear and unambiguous English throughout the manuscript. However, some abbreviations were not written explicitly where they are first used.
The article includes sufficent introduction that shows how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge and current literature was referenced.
There are too many figures in the manuscript, the number of figures should be reduced.
Experimental design: The subject of the manuscript fits with the aims and scope of the journal.
Validity of the findings: In the literature there are several studies showing the relation between the role of circRNAs and colorectal cancer pathogenesis. From this point of view, although the originality of the article is low, it is thought that it may contribute to the literature since the circRNAs that are found in the studied patient group are different from the literature. I believe that this manuscript can have a potential for publication in PeerJ after considering major concerns.

1.	In the materials and methods parts, CRC tumor and paracancerous tissues (as tissue within 10-15 cm adjacent to the carcinoma) were used in order to make a comparison between the differential expression profile of circRNAs of tumor and normal tissues. However, paracancerous tissue is refered as the tissue less than 2 cm away from the tumor edge while normal tissue was defined as the tissue more than 2 cm away from the tumor edge. In this study, it is not clear that whether the control tissue is paracancerous or normal tissue. Authors did not indicate any pathological data regarding that control tissue is completely free of tumor cells.
2.	Colorectal cancer is a type of cancer which originates from colon or rectum cells. However, still many apparent differences exist in terms of genetics, anatomy and treatment response between colon cancer and rectal cancer. In this manuscript out of 33 cases 12 of them have colon and 21 of them have rectum tumor. In the results and discussion parts circRNAs differential expression patterns should be considered between these groups also.
3. In the evaluation step of the ROC curves, AUC values of the upregulated circRNAs are in the acceptable range while AUC values of the downregulated circRNAs are in the excellent range. This difference may need to be discussed.
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: POTENTIAL AND FUNCTIONAL PREDICTION OF SIX CIRCULAR RNAS AS DIAGNOSTIC MARKERS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: no comment
Experimental design: In order to explain the study design a flow chart should be added. Therefore the outline of the study design would become more clear.  Especially the databases used for CircRNA-miRNA-mRNA Interaction Prediction, pathway analysis, Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) Network Construction, GEPIA should be explained.
Validity of the findings: Power analysis should be performed in order to conclude whether the total sample size is sufficient for comparison.
Additional comments: Limitations of the study which is mentioned in the last paragraph of the Discussion Section should be improved. Professional English should be used. The reasons of the limitations should be explained in detail.


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

Input:
Title: POTENTIAL AND FUNCTIONAL PREDICTION OF SIX CIRCULAR RNAS AS DIAGNOSTIC MARKERS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 3

Output:
Basic reporting: In this manuscript the authors undertook to study a potential diagnostic and predictive indicators of several critical circRNA-miRNA-mRNA regulatory axes in CRC.
The manuscript in its current form has major flaws, making it difficult to judge its suitability for publication.
The introduction part should be reorganized. Following are the points those need to be addressed in introduction :
•	Some statements should be double checked for accuracy and added more references.
•	Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced about relationship between circRNAs and colerectal cancer.  Please, cite the manuscripts entitled, " circCAMSAP1, CircHIPK3 and CircRNA_0000392 etc  in the introduction.

Figure 1 represents the data quality of each chip is reliable after data normalization. If necessary, it can be given given in the supplementary file section.

Figure 5 indicates that Correlation of six candidate circRNAs with clinicopathological parameters is not statistically significant. Also in the data stardard deviation is too high. My concern is that is it correct to refer this study as six Circular RNAs as diagnostic markers for colorectal cancer. Kindly explain how?

Figure 6 and 8 are graphs showing The basic structural patterns of differantional expressed circRNA and miRNA binding secondary structure. These can be also given in the supplementary file section. I don't think it's necessary in the main figure.

In Figure 7 entitled “The top five targeted miRNAs for circRNA-miRNA regulatory network”, the tumor suppressor or oncogenic function of miRNAs in the CRC should be discussed in the discussion part. Although there is limited information about circRNA, the function of miRNAs are well known. For example, PMID: 34822025 and PMID: 30962766 are two different studies about miR-665 in CRC recently.

Figure 9 could be organized in a better way to make it easier for readers to understand the data.

Figure 13 "cirReAXEs in the CRC" shows that hsa-circRNA-102293 target same miRNA family (miR-30b-5p and miR-30e-5p). Also same trend are also between miRNA-mRNA. How can you explain it, please your comment add to discussion part.
Experimental design: Hypothesis or aim of this study is unclear.  Please explain in end of the introduction section.

It is recommended to deposit your circRNA microarray data in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) or ArrayExpress and accession numbers could be provided in the published manuscript.
Validity of the findings: The discussion and conclusion parts of the manuscript need to be re-written. There are no clear concluding remarks at the end of discussion. Discussion needs to be recomposed with clear-cut final conclusion that marks the importance of all the analyses done by the authors.

Kindly, explain the future perspective of the study in more elaborate manner, if possible.
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: POTENTIAL AND FUNCTIONAL PREDICTION OF SIX CIRCULAR RNAS AS DIAGNOSTIC MARKERS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The authors were used clear English throughout the manuscript, however still there are some spelling mistakes. These minor mistakes should be corrected in the manuscript. The main structure of the article, figures, tables and references are acceptable.
Experimental design: The authors have tried to complete all the suggested revisions in the manuscript. However, as an answer of the suggestion “In the results and discussion parts circRNAs differential expression patterns should be considered between colon and rectum cancer cases.” they have only made a general supplementary discussion about the difference between colon cancer and rectum cancer. It will be better if they made this dicsussion by using their own data.
Validity of the findings: It is acceptable
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: POTENTIAL AND FUNCTIONAL PREDICTION OF SIX CIRCULAR RNAS AS DIAGNOSTIC MARKERS FOR COLORECTAL CANCER
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Research question is not well defined. Please add your hypothesis at the end of the introduction part, in which it is stated how your research fills an identified knowledge gap.

Figure 5 indicates that Correlation of six candidate circRNAs with clinicopathological parameters is not statistically significant. Also in the data stardard deviation is too high. My concern is that is it correct to refer this study as six Circular RNAs as diagnostic markers for colorectal cancer. Your answer supports this concern. Just showing the same expression trend, microarray and qRT-PCR analysis, is not sufficient to be identified as a diagnostic marker. Therefore, I think the figure should be removed in the manuscript.
Experimental design: no comment
Validity of the findings: The Discussion and Conclusion sections of the manuscript need to be re-written. Following are the points those need to be addressed :

The sentences between lines 352-366 are related to the general information and belong to the introduction part. This sentences which affected the flow of this part should be removed. Also, I think there should be better transitions into the next topics.

Sentences starting with “It should be pointed out that ----” in line 448 and to the end of the paragraph, these sentences are not suitable for a scientific manuscript. Please re-written.

The conclusion part should be re-written. Sentences starting with “CircRNA has important-----” in line 478 belong to the conclusion part. I recommend that you end of this paragraph with a sentence that connects with your own data.
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: DIFFERENCES IN COLLEGE STUDENTS’ OCCUPATIONAL DYSFUNCTION AND MENTAL HEALTH CONSIDERING TRAIT AND STATE ANXIETY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is an important report on the state of health during a pandemic and is relevant to the purpose and scope of PeerJ. However, the manuscript should be improved using the following comments.

I would recommend the authors to improve the title. The title does not conform to the manuscript. The author is investigating trait anxiety, state anxiety, and occupational dysfunction, as well as health literacy, stress response, and positive/negative emotions.

The introduction is a logical leap and lacks the content to be discussed. Four main improvements are needed. First, the author needs to present an argument linking mental health (e.g., stress response, burnout syndrome, and depression) and occupational dysfunction in order to correct a logical leap. Several previous studies have suggested a link between mental health and occupational dysfunction. The authors need to clearly demonstrate the link between mental health and occupational dysfunction.
Second, the authors should present a discussion related to COVID-19 and occupational dysfunction. In occupational therapy, function and performance are interchangeable concepts (Law, Baum, and Dunn ed, 2016; ASIN: B086Z5M916). Problems related to occupational performance and occupational participation need to be recognized as the same as occupational dysfunction. Therefore, the authors should clearly indicate previous studies that examined the association of COVID-19 with occupational performance and occupational participation as well as occupational dysfunction. The current manuscript is limited to a conceptual description of occupational dysfunction and needs to be substantially revised.
Third, the author should clearly state the hypothesis to be tested in this study. The introduction indicates the purpose of the study, but it is unclear what hypothesis will be tested by this study. The hypothesis should be clearly presented.
Fourth, the author needs to match the introduction with the methods and results. In this manuscript, the methods and results are presented in excess of the introduction. For example, the results and methods show the prevalence of occupational dysfunction, its association with health literacy, stress response, and positive/negative emotions. These findings are important. However, the need to validate them is not indicated in the introduction. The introduction needs a major revision overall.
Experimental design: The authors provide sufficient explanation to reproduce. However, this manuscript needs some improvements.

This manuscript contains the names of the universities that were surveyed. Therefore, this manuscript does not guarantee complete anonymity. The authors need to revise the description to guarantee complete anonymity.

The authors need to clearly indicate the social conditions at the time of the survey. Was the country under a declared state of emergency during the period of the survey? Had the pandemic been contained? The authors need to explain the context related to the pandemic during the study period.

The authors used a cross-sectional study, but stated that there were two measurement points. The design is difficult to understand. It needs to be improved by using figures to explain in detail.

This manuscript has major problems with the introduction, so I cannot judge the appropriateness of the scale used. The authors need to revise the introduction substantially or narrow the focus of the methods to match the introduction.

The STAI divides them into four groups, but the method needs to be clearly explained.
Validity of the findings: The authors report the results in detail. However, the author needs to improve some things.

The authors indicate the prevalence of occupational dysfunction in the results. However, the authors do not explain how to calculate the prevalence.

In the discussion, it is stated that the overall prevalence of occupational dysfunction was 47%. However, this 47% is not shown in the results. Also, this method does not show how to calculate the prevalence of occupational dysfunction. The authors should distinguish between results and discussion, and clearly explain the method used.

The authors include in the discussion what should be discussed in the introduction. The authors should distinguish between the introduction and the discussion.

The conclusion is excessive for the research question presented in the introduction. The author needs to improve the introduction significantly.
Additional comments: This manuscript is a valuable report on the association between COVID-19 and occupational dysfunction. If there are any weaknesses in this manuscript, they are mainly in the introduction, which should be improved together with the methods, results, and 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: DIFFERENCES IN COLLEGE STUDENTS’ OCCUPATIONAL DYSFUNCTION AND MENTAL HEALTH CONSIDERING TRAIT AND STATE ANXIETY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: Nothing
Experimental design: 1. Title
The title of your dissertation is different from the content. Please give a title according to the research result

2.Purpose of research
The research purpose and the actual content do not match. Please change the purpose according to the actual situation of the research. Or you should perform a statistical analysis that suits your research objectives.
Validity of the findings: 1. Design
"Each measurement was performed twice within two weeks to account for participant fatigue; CAOD and HLS-EU-Q47 were measured the first time, and STAI, POMS-2, and SRS-18 were measured the second time."(153-155)
　　Why did you ask participants to answer STAI, POMS and SRS-18 two weeks later? When treated as cross-sectional data, the correlation analysis between these and CAOD and HLS-EU-Q47 is not valid.

2. Statistical analysis
You write in the analysis normality test, cutoff, multiple comparison test, and correlation analysis.
However, the risk of occupational dysfunction appears in the results.
Also, there is a description such as odds ratio in the discussion.
You should clearly describe the analysis method.

3. Results
As mentioned earlier, you are describing results that are not listed in the statistical analysis.
You need to describe the entire analysis and reflect it in the results.

4. Discussion
"The evaluation of occupational dysfunction may thus be more effective if the degree of state and trait anxiety is taken into account."(251-252)
"Therefore, college students with high trait anxiety, state anxiety, negative emotions, and stress response scores are more likely to have occupational dysfunction. "(254-256)
　　These sentences cannot be derived from the results. For example, the sentences on lines 254 to 256 cannot be stated unless the odds ratio is calculated. You need to review the whole thing and write a thought that fits the result
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: DIFFERENCES IN COLLEGE STUDENTS’ OCCUPATIONAL DYSFUNCTION AND MENTAL HEALTH CONSIDERING TRAIT AND STATE ANXIETY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: The author has made appropriate improvements to the manuscript. However, this manuscript needs minor revisions.

Authors need to clearly state the research hypothesis in the introduction. The research hypothesis is a statement explaining the relationship between the independent and dependent variables based on previous research. In the introduction, please mention the research hypothesis that the author theoretically derived from previous studies. The research hypothesis should be presented after the research objectives.
Example;
Hypothesis 1: Individuals with higher anxiety states tend to have higher occupational dysfunction, negative emotion, and stress response.
Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 3:

The discussion should clearly mention whether the results supported the research hypothesis or differed from the research hypothesis.
Experimental design: The authors need to report reliability coefficients for the five rating scales based on previous studies.
Validity of the findings: no comment.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: DIFFERENCES IN COLLEGE STUDENTS’ OCCUPATIONAL DYSFUNCTION AND MENTAL HEALTH CONSIDERING TRAIT AND STATE ANXIETY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 2
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: Discussion ( L.285~308)

Your argument in this paragraph relies 90% on previous research.
The only discussion in this study was "There was a moderate correlation between occupational dysfunction, negative emotion, and stress responses (299-300)."
In the discussion, you will develop a discussion based on your research results.
Previous research is a supplement to your research results.
Additional comments: There have been improvements since the first manuscript.
Please make minor corrections 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: DIFFERENCES IN COLLEGE STUDENTS’ OCCUPATIONAL DYSFUNCTION AND MENTAL HEALTH CONSIDERING TRAIT AND STATE ANXIETY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript has been appropriately revised. Thank you for your hard work.
Experimental design: No comment.
Validity of the findings: No comment.
Additional comments: No additional comments


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

Input:
Title: DIFFERENCES IN COLLEGE STUDENTS’ OCCUPATIONAL DYSFUNCTION AND MENTAL HEALTH CONSIDERING TRAIT AND STATE ANXIETY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Review round: 3
Reviewer: 2

Output:
Basic reporting: No comment
Experimental design: No comment
Validity of the findings: No comment
Additional comments: The dissertation was revised appropriately.


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: PREVALENCE AND RICHNESS OF MALARIA AND MALARIA-LIKE PARASITES IN WILD BIRDS FROM DIFFERENT BIOMES IN SOUTH AMERICA
Review round: 1
Reviewer: 1

Output:
Basic reporting: This manuscript is overall clearly structured and well written, except for a few ambiguous sentences (see specific comments). The background is clear and concise. However, the authors should make clear in the introduction that this study is merely a comparison of data et results published in two other research articles (Belo et al 2011, Belo et al 2012). I think it is a good thing to add value to published data, but it should be clearly stated, which is not the case here. These two papers are not cited in the introduction, and one of them (Belo et al. 2011, for the Brazilian data) is even missing in the reference list. It is only briefly mentioned in the Study site section of the material and methods that the “areas had been previously studied”, which is rather ambiguous. The fact that the authors describe entirely the data collection, the wet lab and phylogenetic analyses is misleading because it looks like it is new work. I think the authors should refer to the published papers (from which the data come from) for most of the methods, and only describe in detail the new statistical analyses they performed (and other potential new additions).
The figures are relevant and correctly labelled.
Suggestions for Figure 1: perhaps writing countries’ names (at least Brazil) on the map would make it more immediately readable (and the scale and the North arrow would not be necessary). And, if not too fastidious, using a pin-shaped symbol would improve clarity for the Brazilian sampling sites.
Figure 2: what do the error bars represent? If space allows, here is a suggestion: for each plot, it may be nice to show a bar for each sampling site (grouped by biomes) and a line over of the bars to represent the mean for the biome (instead of only the means per biome). It would also be interesting – again, if space allows - to see parasite community composition plots for each sampling site.
For potential meta-analysis, it would be useful to deposit raw data in the form of a .csv or .txt table (with species, sampling date, sampling coordinates, infection status and parasite sequence when applicable and any other interesting variable that was collected for each captured individual).
Experimental design: The GLMMs sound appropriate to compare prevalence and parasite richness of these two biomes.
L.150: Authors should cite the publications linked to the R packages they used (Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01).
L.152: if the response variable was 1/0 (infected/uninfected) each bird, I would rather use “infection status” than “prevalence”, as prevalence refers to a proportion of infected individuals in a population/group.
L.156: I guess it is a Poisson, and not poison, distribution
L.157: if I understand correctly, you built a model with the species richness per locality as a response variable, and locality as a random effect (and biome, prevalence, number of birds and bird richness as fixed variables). I do not think that a model that has a different random effect value for each response variable value is supposed to converge. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not think you should use locality as random effect.
In addition, you could test whether species richness varies with seasons. These data would also allow for analyses on species compositions.
I will not comment on the rest of the method section as I think it should be removed and reference to the original papers should be made, but I have one question: were the birds ringed to avoid sampling some individuals several times?
If the authors do not remove the rest of the method section, they should at least describe how were treated mixed infections and report the number of positive samples for which they were unable to identify lineages.
Validity of the findings: The result section should only report results that have not been published yet, that is the results of the GLMMs (if I understood correctly). Otherwise, the conclusions are well-stated, linked to the original research question.
Additional comments: As PeerJ is a generalist journal, it might be worth mentioning that Plasmodium causes avian malaria.
Other specific comments:
L.55: not only Culicidae, but also Ceratopogonidae and Hippoboscidae
L.63: not sure about this, but I think “infection dynamics” refers to what happens within an infected host. To avoid ambiguity, I would use “parasite population dynamics”.
L.65: “transmission dynamics, abundance and diversity”
L.87: punctuation
L.164: haemosporidian parasites
L.180: on what criteria are these lineages similar? Were the sequences similar?
L.186: were these seven lineages never found in any other area, or only in your sampling sites?
L.198-200: This sentence repeats itself.
L.203-204: “The Tyrannidae represent about 33.5% of the birds that perform this type of displacement (Remsen, 1997).”