Last active
September 16, 2021 00:37
-
-
Save steveharoz/dfb1a45b39346f85e3aa39a43adebb75 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Get text before "author" or "researcher" and after "author is" or "authors are"
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| library(tidyverse) | |
| PATH = "peerj_reviews_txt/" | |
| ignored_words = c("the", "dear", "original") | |
| filenames = dir(path = PATH, pattern="*.txt", recursive = TRUE) | |
| preceeding_words = sapply(filenames, function(f) { | |
| words = read_file(paste0(PATH, f)) %>% | |
| str_split_fixed(fixed("Summary"), n = 2) %>% | |
| `[`(,2) %>% | |
| str_extract_all( "(?<=\\s)\\w+?(?=\\s(authors?[^']|researchers?[^']))" ) %>% | |
| unlist() | |
| words[! (str_to_lower(words) %in% ignored_words)] %>% | |
| paste0(f, ": ", .) %>% | |
| paste(collapse = "\n") | |
| }) | |
| preceeding_words %>% paste(collapse = "\n") %>% | |
| write_lines(paste0(PATH, "../author_is authors_are.txt")) | |
| following_words = sapply(filenames, function(f) { | |
| words = read_file(paste0(PATH, f)) %>% | |
| str_split_fixed(fixed("Summary"), n = 2) %>% | |
| `[`(,2) %>% | |
| str_to_lower() %>% | |
| str_extract_all( "(author is|authors are|they are)([, ]+[\\w-]+)+" ) %>% | |
| unlist() | |
| words[! (str_to_lower(words) %in% ignored_words)] %>% | |
| paste0(f, ": ", .) %>% | |
| paste(collapse = "\n") | |
| }) | |
| following_words %>% paste(collapse = "\n") %>% | |
| write_lines(paste0(PATH, "../following.txt")) | |
This file has been truncated, but you can view the full file.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/1.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/10.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/100.txt: authors are describing a methodology for teaching graduate students | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/101.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/102.txt: authors are encouraged to rewrite the paper in a more mathematically formal way since the work is interesting | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/102.txt: they are using 20 joints, it makes roughtly 60 variables for the whole model in a given time instant | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/102.txt: they are representation of the curve values | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/103.txt: authors are trying to follow | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/104.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/105.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/106.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/107.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/108.txt: authors are aware of this, since these scripting capabilities made possible their own development using eeglab as a base, as well as the many contribution received as eeglab | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/109.txt: authors are substantiated and insightful | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/11.txt: they are building some sort of framework in this context | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/11.txt: they are the best choice would be interesting | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/110.txt: they are all discussed with enough rigor and provided with useful examples | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/110.txt: they are all discussed with enough rigor and provided with useful examples | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/110.txt: they are not currently doing it | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/111.txt: they are put as an appendix, but i do consider them as an integral part of the paper that needs to be included in the final version of the paper as well | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/111.txt: they are central to the research question | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/111.txt: they are spending so much time answering what seems to be a different question | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/111.txt: they are not identifiable as women | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/111.txt: they are outsiders in a project | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/111.txt: authors are measuring are differences in how the two genders perform on various activities wrt pull request handling, including their under | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/112.txt: they are in manuscript, i now see no major problems with the basic reporting other than that the discussion section and connections back to existing research could still be improved | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/112.txt: authors are comparing with latex or this example is the instruction in case of you want to transform md to latex | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/113.txt: authors are not considering the balanced case | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/114.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/115.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/116.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/117.txt: they are simply linear models | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/118.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/119.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/12.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/120.txt: they are not the first to provide one | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/121.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/122.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/123.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/124.txt: they are the most frequent | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/125.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/126.txt: they are an integral part of the paper and will be useful for someone who want to reproduce the system | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/126.txt: they are included in the main text, or after references, rather than as separate files | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/126.txt: authors are commended for reporting in a largely clear and unambiguous manner, particularly across languages | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/126.txt: authors are commended for contributing a novel technique for modelling market prices based on social media data, as well as eliciting interesting empirical results to inform public policy and future research | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/127.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/128.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/129.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/13.txt: they are transient leading to them possibly being missed by the driver | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/130.txt: they are first mentioned | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/130.txt: they are categories of experience, but the treatment seems to imply that it is problematic | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/130.txt: they are original and within the scope of the journal | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/130.txt: they are significant for the larger issue of software quality cite this review as | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/131.txt: authors are somewhat negative about the current application in se education | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/132.txt: they are phrased | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/132.txt: authors are encouraged to improve the language and presentation of their results to remove any ambiguity about the claims they make and evidence that supports such claims | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/132.txt: authors are invited to review those observations and incorporate them, according to their judgement, in a resubmitted version of the manuscript | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/132.txt: they are all missing and of course will need to be re-instated, and there are numerous cases | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/132.txt: they are perfectly acceptable for this kind of work | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/133.txt: they are integrated into the analysis workflow, since they contain key information for the proposed approach | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/134.txt: they are likely to provide answer y to question b | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/135.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/136.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/137.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/138.txt: authors are, however, commended for achieving such a high speed-up with just 4 gpus, under cuda environment and for achieving high parallelism to solve this problem | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/138.txt: authors are commended this work | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/138.txt: they are not correctly stated at the boundaries z | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/138.txt: authors are recommended to state the region | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/139.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/14.txt: they are mentioned | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/140.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/141.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/142.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/143.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/144.txt: authors are active in the national data services consortium, i was disappointed that nds is not mentioned, e | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/145.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/146.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/147.txt: author is the first one to discover a result and puts a time stamp on it | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/148.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/149.txt: they are in a separate repo | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/149.txt: they are not explicitly marked as non-exportable | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/149.txt: they are explicitly marked as non-exportable | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/149.txt: they are in another repository it should be listed in the supplementary materials | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/149.txt: they are not presently supported was not clear until the very end, when it was explicitly stated in section 7 | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/149.txt: authors are trying to say here | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/15.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/150.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/151.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/152.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/153.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/154.txt: they are limited to the results obtained | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/154.txt: authors are not clear and they require a better explanation | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/154.txt: they are limited to the results obtained | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/155.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/156.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/157.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/157.txt: they are limited to the results obtained | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/158.txt: they are as necessary to understanding the work as a knowledge of partial differential equations is to understanding a paper about fluid mechanics - but in places i felt that having worked on this tool for so long, the author may have lost sight of how much background knowledge the description assumes or requires | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/158.txt: they are not implemented | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/159.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/16.txt: they are all very satisfactory | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/160.txt: author is using a package for the dae solve | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/161.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/162.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/163.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/164.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/164.txt: they are mentioned | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/165.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/166.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/167.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/168.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/169.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/17.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/170.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/171.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/172.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/173.txt: authors are generally careful in delineating conclusions based on evidence and speculation | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/173.txt: authors are exploring, e | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/173.txt: they are unlikely to yield high performers | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/173.txt: they are not doing well in school | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/174.txt: they are versioned and given a doi for their citation | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/175.txt: they are limited to the results obtained | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/175.txt: authors are trying to | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/176.txt: authors are invited to perform a last careful proofread to fix typing errors that may still be present in the manuscript to ensure the highest quality manuscript for peerj cs | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/177.txt: authors are in full agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/178.txt: they are shown now, the reader struggles to visualize the information | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/179.txt: they are clear | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/18.txt: they are trying to address | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/180.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/181.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/182.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/183.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/184.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/185.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/186.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/187.txt: they are expected to be used | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/188.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/189.txt: they are not well formulated | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/189.txt: they are just muddled through each other | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/189.txt: they are identified | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/189.txt: authors are just selling themselves short by not maximizing the use of the network measures and terminology | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/189.txt: authors are not doing their work justice, by stuffing them into one paper | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/19.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/190.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/191.txt: they are not well understood or they are incorrectly written | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/191.txt: authors are cutting-edge research on many machine learning and related topics nowadays and the authors explore their architecture for aspect extraction within the context of sentiment analysis | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/192.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/193.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/194.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/195.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/196.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/197.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/198.txt: they are only used once data has been fully integrated into the system | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/199.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/2.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/20.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/200.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/201.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/202.txt: authors are not only interested in the model, but also in the possibilities for parallel implementations, and their benefits | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/202.txt: they are evaluated every time step, and some pass over, so that the size of the population does not change | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/203.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/204.txt: they are advising that you revise your manuscript | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/204.txt: they are not drastically different | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/204.txt: they are at the end of the paper and completely detached from the experimental results section, which means i had to go back and forth, making it harder to read | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/205.txt: they are manipulated | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/205.txt: they are also far too limited in scope | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/205.txt: they are set differently for each experiment, and almost every experiment contains of only a single sound | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/206.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/207.txt: they are x, y, z and roll, pitch, yaw but they have to be defined with the example similar to lines 271-273 | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/208.txt: they are not well understood or they are incorrectly written | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/209.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/21.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/210.txt: authors are using data collected from a can of an suv | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/210.txt: authors are tackling | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/210.txt: they are of course the basic | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/211.txt: authors are trying to address in the paper | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/212.txt: authors are really addressing current needs, not of integrating two different apps, but rather the integration of new modules of skill sets into the apps | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/212.txt: authors are examining | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/212.txt: authors are exploring | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/212.txt: authors are introducing in this manuscript | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/213.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/213.txt: authors are not clear on the ethical guidelines that they follow | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/214.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/215.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/216.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/217.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/218.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/219.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/22.txt: they are actually incomparable | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/220.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/221.txt: they are an opportunity to improve the paper | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/221.txt: authors are professionals and this shows | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/222.txt: authors are suggested to make revisions accordingly | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/223.txt: they are vital to the training of automated methods that predict the temporal annotations | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/224.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/225.txt: they are listed below and in the order in which they occur | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/225.txt: they are valuable | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/225.txt: they are valuable | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/225.txt: they are included in the general embedding and the the aspect phrase embedding | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/23.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/24.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/25.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/26.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/27.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/28.txt: they are not inferred from the data | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/28.txt: they are not inferred from the described experimentation | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/28.txt: they are trying to answer | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/29.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/3.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/30.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/31.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/32.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/33.txt: they are too short and blat was designed to detect near-perfect matches of this length or longer | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/33.txt: they are too short and blat was designed to detect near-perfect matches of this length or longer | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/33.txt: they are located are in introns | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/34.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/35.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/36.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/37.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/38.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/39.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/4.txt: they are presenting it to the world | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/4.txt: they are firstly used in pag | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/40.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/41.txt: authors are the core | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/41.txt: authors are working with a large dataset and hence, these should be minimized | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/41.txt: authors are not necessarily the most productive and more cited one | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/42.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/43.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/44.txt: they are included, there should be some justification and goal achieved | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/45.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/46.txt: they are sharing that to make their experiments repeatable by other researchers | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/46.txt: they are all less than one | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/47.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/48.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/49.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/5.txt: they are interesting, engaging, of artistic value | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/5.txt: they are different and which character will identify each voice, apart from the range of notes | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/50.txt: they are evaluated at -- | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/50.txt: they are evaluated 7 | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/50.txt: authors are aware of this project, and am happy to leave this to their discretion | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/51.txt: they are different | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/52.txt: they are more fitting | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/53.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/54.txt: they are nice, but why duplicate them in both python and c | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/55.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/56.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/57.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/58.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/59.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/6.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/60.txt: authors are appropriately guarded and circumspect in their interpretation of the frontal delta and theta components | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/61.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/62.txt: they are welcome to do so as well | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/63.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/64.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/65.txt: they are always worse than previous ones when looking at the statistical comparison | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/65.txt: they are presenting an automatic system to find similarities between crimes | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/66.txt: they are intended to be measured | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/67.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/68.txt: they are bisected until this condition is met | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/68.txt: author is not marked | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/68.txt: they are available | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/68.txt: they are accepting such papers | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/69.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/7.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/70.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/71.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/72.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/73.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/74.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/75.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/76.txt: they are not all equally important | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/76.txt: authors are then using in the experimental validation | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/77.txt: they are from the same authors | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/77.txt: they are manually defined or learned from data | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/78.txt: they are never edited or they are of the same size | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/79.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/8.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/80.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/81.txt: they are listed as follows | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/82.txt: they are watching could be psychologically irrelevant, to the extent that they could have been watching non-robotic swarms like a school of fish in a tank, a set of billiard balls moving randomly on a table, or even a complex mechanism with several moving parts with no resemblance to a swarm at all | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/83.txt: they are very useful | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/84.txt: they are meant to improve the quality of your submitted paper and make it clearer its contribution with respect to other work | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/85.txt: they are not made accessible via a centralised repository like the biojs registry | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/86.txt: they are never used | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/86.txt: author is affiliated with github, i assume this aspect was left out intentionally, but why | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/86.txt: they are an important aspect to discuss for software citations | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/87.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/88.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/89.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/9.txt: authors are having trouble doing this, i urge them to contact me for assistance | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/90.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/91.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/92.txt: authors are commended on embarking the 2 studies | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/93.txt: they are also involved in reaching the legal conclusions | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/93.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/93.txt: they are described in the judgment of case | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/93.txt: authors are aware of ecthr practice that i am unaware of, this seems dangerously naive | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/93.txt: they are subjective summaries of the facts, including what the authors think is relevant and what they think is irrelevant | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/94.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/95.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/96.txt: they are not necessarily deforming that much to begin with | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/97.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/98.txt: | |
| peerj_cs_reviews_txt/99.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/10.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/100.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1000.txt: they are in their current state | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1001.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1002.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1002.txt: they are hypsodont shows a high level of functional adaptation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1002.txt: they are not the same picture | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1002.txt: they are not immediately functional | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1003.txt: authors are missing in the reference list | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1004.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1005.txt: they are not data-driven | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1005.txt: they are not needed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1006.txt: they are unable to adapt to the predicted rises in temp over | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1007.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1008.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1009.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/101.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1010.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1011.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1012.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1013.txt: authors are interested primarily in the mean growth rate i think this could be obtained analytically from the mean matrix | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1014.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1015.txt: authors are referring to the lack of more systematic or multi-drug studies of selective publication that should be made more explicit | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1015.txt: authors are able to address the above concerns, i believe it should be accepted for publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1015.txt: authors are able to explain and analyse the legal rights issues in greater depth, i suggest that they remove those references from the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1016.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1017.txt: they are actually talking about copy numbers of particular introns i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1017.txt: authors are sure they are really gii rts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1018.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1019.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/102.txt: they are world wide figures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/102.txt: authors are recommended to directly refer to the comparison of the treatments, not only to the within-group effects | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/102.txt: authors are recommended to add these data in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/102.txt: authors are recommended to discuss this result more in detail as well | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1020.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1021.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1022.txt: authors are encouraged to address the reviewers concern and submit a revised version along with a point to point response | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1023.txt: authors are fortunately aware of this and have attempted to propose potential reasons for this in the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1024.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1025.txt: authors are advised to take care of the comments suggested by the reviewers in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1025.txt: they are counterintuitive given the methodologies used by the two programs | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1026.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1027.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1028.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1029.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/103.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1030.txt: they are not explained well | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1031.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1032.txt: they are in agreement that the paper should eventually be published | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1032.txt: they are testing whether the assumption of equal weights influences its placement, but what they are really doing is downweighting homoplasious characters, a specific kind of character weighting | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1033.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1034.txt: they are also present in healthy, therefore borers appear not to be exclusively associated with disease and should be clearly stated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1034.txt: authors are trying to say | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1035.txt: they are interested in experienced rather than anticipated regret | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1035.txt: they are going to examine this, as it is perhaps the more controversial claim in their paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1035.txt: they are least likely to regret taking a risk | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1036.txt: they are casts, it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1036.txt: authors are unaware that that these tarsal elements, attributed to caenopithecus, were originally reported in dagosto | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1036.txt: they are also figured in fig | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1036.txt: authors are welcome to disagree with dagosto in terms of phyletic closeness with afradapis, a taxon unknown in 1986, but the original work belongs to her | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1036.txt: they are in total connection with the original question investigated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1036.txt: they are just numbered 1-23 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1037.txt: they are working only with a coding region they are only dealing with 1st, 2nd and 3rd codon sites, so there are no | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1038.txt: they are presented in the other field | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1039.txt: author is talking about groups of encapsulated cells | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/104.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1040.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1041.txt: authors are simply predicting the solvent exposure of these fragments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1042.txt: they are simple and low-tech enough to be used by local field assistants, and the creativity extended to your thinking about non-invasive sampling | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1043.txt: they are deposed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1043.txt: they are merely young or old | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1044.txt: they are important, particularly from a biological perspective as well as more specifically for the lower triassic | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1044.txt: they are not really relevant for the history of chirotherium ibericus | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1045.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1046.txt: they are interested in the association between c-section and childhood obesity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1047.txt: they are too dissimilar, even assigning an otu to a higher taxonomic group may be risky | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1048.txt: they are apparently being used for tests | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1049.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/105.txt: they are positive, so we can provisionally accept the paper as long as minor revisions are finished | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/105.txt: they are perhaps not the most appropriate to references to use here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1050.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1051.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1052.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1053.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1054.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1055.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1056.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1057.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1058.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1059.txt: they are interesting and important | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/106.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1060.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1061.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1062.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1063.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1064.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1065.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1066.txt: authors are particularly interested in three compounds, azadirachtin a, nimbin and salanin | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1066.txt: authors are interested in the genome work, they should perform genome comparison and not report genome sequence, which is already been done | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1066.txt: authors are interested in the genome work, they should perform genome comparison with the new version of the tool but with reads from published assembly and then compare genomes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1067.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1068.txt: authors are critically taking their results, but i think that concernig metabolic syndrome | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1068.txt: they are missing the proper cardiovascular background | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1069.txt: they are both discussed in the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/107.txt: they are complicated to avoid | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/107.txt: they are now, but it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1070.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1071.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1072.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1073.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1074.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1075.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1076.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1077.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1078.txt: they are visible to the reviewers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1079.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/108.txt: authors are relying on previous publications on related experiments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1080.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1081.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1082.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1083.txt: they are from plasma origin | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1084.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1085.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1086.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1087.txt: authors are presenting an artifact of doing a different taxonomic research project all together | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1087.txt: they are presented graphically by the authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1088.txt: they are offered | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1088.txt: they are not included in the species description of leggadina macrodonta from floraville | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1088.txt: they are disarticulated and thus direct association of lowers with uppers is lost, lower jaw elements can sometimes be associated with uppers through other means such as size, proportions or qualitative features that might be expected to be correlated between upper and lower molars | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1088.txt: they are a bit sketchy and rough in places and the pencil outlines are too faint | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1089.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/109.txt: they are not yet ready for prime time | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1090.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1091.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1092.txt: they are somewhat isolated from the rest of the gbr | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1093.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1094.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1095.txt: they are primarily points for discussion, rather than must-edits, and a few minor points of clarity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1096.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1097.txt: authors are able to tackle these issues readily | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1098.txt: they are assessed, whether at age 2, 4, 7, or 16 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1099.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/11.txt: they are the only two | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/11.txt: they are also not convincingly argued, nor are the example taxa necessarily the best match to the stated goals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/110.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1100.txt: they are nearly semantically empty and constant across the items tested | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1101.txt: authors are concerned that they can | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1101.txt: they are phrased in a fashion that is not transparent to a reader who was not a participant in the work | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1102.txt: they are less motivated to perform the exercises in the correct way as they do not suffer from shoulder pain | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1103.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1104.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1105.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1106.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1107.txt: they are admitted to the hospital may have a negative influence on experienced distress | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1107.txt: they are awaiting surgery | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1108.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1109.txt: authors are incorrect in referring to n | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/111.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1110.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1111.txt: authors are on to something here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1112.txt: they are averages, what is the variation in the numbers across preparations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1113.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1114.txt: author is probably not a statistician | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1114.txt: author is right to emphasise in the discussion that this is probably not due to the fact that this analysis is bayesian but the others are frequentist | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1115.txt: authors are correct that various physiological signal contributions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1115.txt: they are mislead in case they assume that these signals would be smeared across the brain evenly and thus | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1116.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1117.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1118.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1119.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/112.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1120.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1121.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1122.txt: authors are referring to the same thing or not and indeed if they are using both interchangeably with the microhabitat variables that they examined in the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1122.txt: they are truly meaning preference | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1122.txt: they are testing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1122.txt: they are central concepts that will be returned to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1122.txt: they are relegated to the supplementary material | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1123.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1124.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1125.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1126.txt: authors are suggested to have more introduction to show why they choose this strain for study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1126.txt: authors are suggested to have more description and discussion in this part | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1127.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1128.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1129.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/113.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1130.txt: they are tied to poor access to vitamin d, or low calcium in the diet which is not a problem seen in wild animals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1130.txt: authors are encouraged to consult zoologic medicine texts and journal articles to develop their differential diagnoses more appropriately in this section | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1130.txt: authors are encouraged to develop differential diagnoses based on relevant zoologic or veterinary literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1131.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1132.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1133.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1134.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1135.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1136.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1137.txt: authors are to be commended for including their r code | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1137.txt: authors are in the attached pdf | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1138.txt: they are adults at this point | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1139.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/114.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1140.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1141.txt: they are very important to show the progression fig2 - figures are not labelled as a, b, c fig4 - bold first sentence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1141.txt: they are appropriate for your study questions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1142.txt: they are hard to read | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1142.txt: they are not even addressed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1143.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1144.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1145.txt: authors are advised to address comments raised by reviewers including the important concern on ethical approval | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1145.txt: author is advice the make correction to the conclusion section which does not reflect the main findings of the research | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1146.txt: authors are advised to revise to meet their minor concerns | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1147.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1148.txt: they are easily spread via casual contact | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1149.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/115.txt: authors are attempting to link changes in expression of key genes involved in a specialised metabolism, rather than trying to analyse everything | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1150.txt: authors are rather speculative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1151.txt: authors are to be congratulated on their interesting and informative work that explores an overlooked area of communication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1152.txt: they are not something i immediately recognize, and i don | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1152.txt: they are saying that the communities of birds examined are changing even though there was little change in habitat | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1153.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1154.txt: authors are better to focus on the main issue of the manuscript rather than describing or commenting on how the identities of the authors can be ascertained | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1154.txt: authors are better to focus on the main issue of the manuscript rather than describing or commenting on how the identities of the authors can be ascertained | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1155.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1156.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1157.txt: they are the most abundant species of salmon | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1157.txt: they are to wildlife, for example if they provide commercial fishing opportunities at unique times of the year, or allow fishers to mitigate for low returns of other salmon stocks | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1157.txt: they are all equally used by bears | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1157.txt: they are spawning along the lake sure and not simply aggregating there | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1158.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1159.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/116.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1160.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1161.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1162.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1163.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1164.txt: they are, in such a pronounced way and with such great computational effort | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1164.txt: they are all explicitly approximate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1165.txt: authors are suggesting both t and r can be true simultaneously | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1165.txt: they are on the small side, likely due to most of the genome being in very small contigs | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1166.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1167.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1168.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1169.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/117.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1170.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1171.txt: they are not preserved | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1171.txt: they are autapomorphies of the genus | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1171.txt: authors are hoping for | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1172.txt: they are terrestrial, or because they are herbivores | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1172.txt: they are proposing hypotheses or interpreting data, and when they are stating observed facts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1173.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1174.txt: they are doing when not sleeping | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1175.txt: they are going to continue to make such claims regarding their model | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1175.txt: authors are to be commended for building a novel apparatus to measure the locomotion, although more expensive and more sensitive gait machines are available on the market | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1176.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1177.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1178.txt: author is conveying two different informations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1178.txt: author is saying that the user can classify his | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1179.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/118.txt: authors are able to apply these available methods to demonstrate common secondary structural elements among mrna subsets | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/118.txt: they are likely to reveal many more examples of global rna coordination though combinatorial cis-trans interactions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1180.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1181.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1182.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1183.txt: they are derived and justified | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1184.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1185.txt: they are trying to manage | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1186.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1187.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1188.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1189.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/119.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1190.txt: they are, although this column is only labeled | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1191.txt: they are the remains of food items considering the isolated and similar vertebrate remains | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1191.txt: they are rather impressions that actual soft-tissue preservation, although later on you say you are unsure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1191.txt: they are gut contents considering the peculiar state of preservation of your specimen | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1191.txt: they are mainly impressions and to a lesser extent actual soft-tissues | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1191.txt: they are just just isolated and always similar elements, how can you rule out scavenging of already partially decayed or disintegrated specimens | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1192.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1193.txt: they are informative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1194.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1195.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1196.txt: they are from private veterinary practices, causes it to produce specific and localized results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1197.txt: authors are assuming that one kind of variation corresponds to the other, but cannot establish this | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1198.txt: authors are, however, questionable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1199.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/12.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/120.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1200.txt: they are aware of their inconsistent and incorrect use | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1201.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1202.txt: they are using spearman | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1203.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1204.txt: authors are referring to frogs as predators or frogs as prey | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1204.txt: authors are looking at whether a given species was eaten by other amphibians, but i think it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1204.txt: they are both coming from the same group of animals, but it is essential that you point out when you are talking about predators and when you are talking about prey | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1204.txt: they are a large limitation to the generality of the results of the study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1204.txt: they are not clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1205.txt: authors are trying to achieve | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1205.txt: authors are likely correct that the accuracy of the units will be higher when recording tracklogs than the 95 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1205.txt: they are interchangeable - they are not and mean quite different things | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1205.txt: they are doing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1205.txt: they are for the roving station | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1206.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1207.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1208.txt: they are relevant or choose not to but, please do the necessary revisions as written in their peer reviewer comments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1208.txt: authors are to be congratulated on the very thorough method for establishing content validity in terms of both language and cultural relevance | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1209.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/121.txt: they are different, and it would be nice to be convinced that these are not driving the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1210.txt: they are reproduced, for the record, below | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1211.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1212.txt: authors are extending their findings to the ecosystem level | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1213.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1214.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1215.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1216.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1217.txt: authors are advised to revise the captions, esp | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1217.txt: authors are advised to revise the terminology | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1218.txt: they are rather low | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1219.txt: author is looking at wing morphology | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/122.txt: authors are encouraged to improve the mechanism | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1220.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1221.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1222.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1223.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1224.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1225.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1226.txt: they are all reasonable for some systems and, most importantly, they are well described and acknowledged | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1227.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1228.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1229.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/123.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1230.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1231.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1232.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1233.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1234.txt: they are hard to change once the manuscript is officially accepted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1234.txt: they are implemented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1234.txt: they are usually not preserved in the fossil record line 270 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1234.txt: authors are exploring the issue of preying of padauginella langeniformis on euhypha sp | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1235.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1236.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1237.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1238.txt: authors are referring to stock within the sea-cages | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1239.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/124.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1240.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1241.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1242.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1243.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1244.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1245.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1246.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1247.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1248.txt: they are clearly stated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1249.txt: they are important respectively to make the paper more complete and more technically correct | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/125.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1250.txt: authors are advised to address their concerns especially with regards to objectives and data analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1250.txt: they are more susceptible to stress and its 57 negative consequences than general population | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1251.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1252.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1253.txt: they are able to repeat the experiment themselves | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1254.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1255.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1256.txt: they are so different for the two populations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1256.txt: they are not introduced here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1256.txt: they are important to the thesis of the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1257.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1258.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1259.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/126.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1260.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1261.txt: authors are aware, the term | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1262.txt: they are the first to use this cohort in a study, and their work provides the tools for others to do studies looking at program success by evaluating faculty success | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1263.txt: they are in agreement | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1264.txt: they are better addressed in a different instrument | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1265.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1266.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1267.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1268.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1269.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/127.txt: they are shuffled in 16s rrna tree and not the transition tree | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1270.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1271.txt: they are working with monomeric material | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1272.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1273.txt: they are indeed very convenient but come along with a few major issues that include high latency and significant overhead | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1274.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1275.txt: they are as follows | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1276.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1277.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1278.txt: authors are aware that questionnaire validation is a complex multi-step process | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1279.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/128.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1280.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1281.txt: they are not ranges of motion - they are joint positions while in the thomas test position | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1281.txt: they are independent, when in fact they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1282.txt: authors are welcome to know my identity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1283.txt: they are seeking yours, prof d gareth evans | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1283.txt: they are associated with environmental risk factors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1284.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1285.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1286.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1287.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1288.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1289.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/129.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1290.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1291.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1292.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1293.txt: they are referring to plant physiology as a whole or specifically milkweed plants | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1293.txt: they are distracting and too conversational | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1294.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1295.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1296.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1297.txt: authors are aware of this effect | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1297.txt: authors are advised to check carefully their use of references | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1298.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1299.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/13.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/130.txt: they are not distorted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1300.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1301.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1302.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1303.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1304.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1305.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1306.txt: authors are thanked for addressing all the minor wording points raised in the last round of reviews in a timely manner, and for a thorough justification of their approach to calculating volume measures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1306.txt: authors are consistent with the results and figures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1307.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1308.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1309.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/131.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1310.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1311.txt: they are quite likely surmountable with revision | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1311.txt: they are absent in earlier hominins | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1312.txt: author is discussing the cultural difference of social anxiety, the following paper must be cited | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1313.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1314.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1315.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1316.txt: they are confusing in some places | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1317.txt: they are productive reefs and are reducing shoreline erosion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1318.txt: they are not independent obsevations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1318.txt: authors are right about the ths breed as being distinct, it should be obvious at k2 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1319.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/132.txt: authors are advised to submitted a revision ms together with a detailed response to the comments made by each reviewer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1320.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1321.txt: authors are also advised to reduce number of figures and tables | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1321.txt: they are the fig | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1322.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1323.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1324.txt: they are the potential food sources for the spiders | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1324.txt: they are predators | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1324.txt: they are not constant, and the assumption about this fractionation can affect the outcomes of sia studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1325.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1326.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1327.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1328.txt: they are unpublished reports | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1328.txt: they are known to be invasive elsewhere | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1328.txt: they are mentioned | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1329.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1329.txt: authors are reasoning from a false premise, that correlations seen in vivo should also be evident in vitro | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1329.txt: authors are reasoning from a false premise, that correlations seen in vivo should also be evident in vitro | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1329.txt: authors are reasoning from a false premise, that correlations seen in vivo should also be evident in vitro | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1329.txt: authors are reasoning from a false premise, that correlations seen in vivo should also be evident in vitro | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/133.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1330.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1331.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1332.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1333.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1334.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1335.txt: authors are well defined | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1335.txt: authors are well defined | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1335.txt: they are perceived as painful or not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1336.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1337.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1338.txt: they are included in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1339.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/134.txt: they are carefully discussed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1340.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1341.txt: they are switching to talk about dinosaurs | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1341.txt: they are far from being widely accepted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1342.txt: they are visited by managed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1343.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1344.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1345.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1346.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1347.txt: they are doing here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1347.txt: they are completely subject to the individual sample rna isolation and the efficiency of each cdna synthesis reaction | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1348.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1349.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/135.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1350.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1351.txt: they are over 40 years that i am studying membrane complex lipids, from their chemistry to their biological properties, and i know very well that there are many papers reporting an incorrect use of cholera toxin for ganglioside recognition | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1351.txt: authors are advised to include another vesicle preparation in their experiments by using cytochalasin and | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1352.txt: they are extremely terse, and do not explain the nature of the whiskers in the box plots | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1352.txt: they are the same thing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1352.txt: they are even more useful and not that large | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1352.txt: authors are investigating the effect of migration | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1352.txt: they are all in one boat | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1353.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1354.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1355.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1356.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1357.txt: they are all fairly minor | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1357.txt: they are all in the same format | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1358.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1359.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/136.txt: they are not described in enough detail for the reader to understand the mechanism by which it could occur | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1360.txt: authors are right when considering the importance of the biological effect size when calling degs | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1361.txt: they are all essential | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1361.txt: they are motivated to do so, it might be very difficult for them to pin down the reasons they arrived at a certain interpretation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1362.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1363.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1364.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1365.txt: authors are requested to perform the experiments using actual 1rm values rather than predictive 1rm values | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1365.txt: authors are requested in substantiate differences in the type of instability these would create in the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1366.txt: they are, in my opinion, unintelligible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1367.txt: authors are silent on the constituents of the culture medium | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1368.txt: authors are relevant, but i think there figures to be added if all the studies presented in this first version remain in the article | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1369.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/137.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1370.txt: authors are interested to use the backward stepwise selection approach, include all variables that meet a pre-specified p-value cut-off | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1371.txt: they are from the active infection | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1371.txt: authors are stating | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1372.txt: they are important in reaction-time based studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1373.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1374.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1375.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1376.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1377.txt: authors are summing p extracted during the fractionation process without incorporating the final step | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1377.txt: authors are likely underestimating total soil p at their research sites for two reasons | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1377.txt: authors are indeed underestimating the total soil p pool, this would greatly alter their findings re | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1378.txt: authors are recommended to check for accuracy of used figures at their end | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1379.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/138.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1380.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1381.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1382.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1383.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1384.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1385.txt: they are using is not sensitive to missing data, or an additional comparison, either by permutations of the data, or by comparing the results of trimmed and untrimmed sequence analyses, to document that this does in fact make no difference to the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1385.txt: they are not this can have a profound influence the result | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1386.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1387.txt: they are standard references in this field | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1388.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1389.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/139.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1390.txt: they are - and subject to my comments above about the desire to move some material from the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1391.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1392.txt: they are first used | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1392.txt: they are relatively easy to distinguish | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1393.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1394.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1395.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1396.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1397.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1398.txt: authors are discussing the potential effect of dysbiosis in the development of pprom and preterm labor and this seems to be the strong subject on which they designed and developed their study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1399.txt: they are not significant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/14.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/140.txt: they are indeed steeper in toxic localities than elsewhere | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/140.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/140.txt: they are only less smooth -made of larger steps- | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1400.txt: authors are requested to give an outline of different spp | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1400.txt: authors are pointing on certain difference in the fatty acid profile compared to related genera | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1400.txt: they are showing the presence of lipids which should be labelled as well | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1401.txt: they are compatible with wine and other linux | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1401.txt: author is trying to write multiple manuscripts in one, and i think that readers not familiar with most of the software used will be unable to extract much from the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1402.txt: authors are to be commended for being totally up-front in disclaiming any proof of causation and in specifically noting potentially confounding variables | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1403.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1404.txt: authors are able to validate their findings in this setting, however, and would provide benefit to the patients, doctors, and health system | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1405.txt: authors are sometimes having hard times to promote their | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1405.txt: authors are well aware of the fact that resisting prevailing opinion usually requires much more effort than following it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1405.txt: they are based only in interpretations of results obtained from others, and the obtained findings promise to have major impacts on the field | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1406.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1407.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1408.txt: they are indeed m1 and m2, please, explain which are the criteria that you use to differentiate among molars and molars from premolars in wakaleo species and in general, in thylacoleonids | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1408.txt: they are long | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1408.txt: author is doing is not a diagnosis in the nomenclatural sense | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1409.txt: they are the depicting the result of a non-significant interaction term in the ancovar | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/141.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1410.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1411.txt: they are supported by the data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1411.txt: they are influenced by environmental factors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1411.txt: authors are unable to differentiate between herbivores and other agents of selection using their particular methods, they must account for this | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1411.txt: they are under-estimating heritability | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1411.txt: authors are basing most of their analyses on their fst values, if these values are estimated poorly, it could have a large impact on their conclusions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1411.txt: authors are under-estimating the fst values, it will make it more likely that they find erroneous differences between pst and fst for their traits | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1412.txt: they are valid | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1413.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1414.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1415.txt: author is analyzing proportional data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1415.txt: they are reported as 1 and 11 in the manuscript but only as 1 in the tables | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1415.txt: authors are sure that the adults collected developed in the lake where they were collected | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1415.txt: they are generalists that should be able to exploit the same species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1415.txt: author is trying to test here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1416.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1417.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1418.txt: they are epidemic trajectories, how were the quantiles determined chosen | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1418.txt: they are more likely to capture all the data, appearing to indicate a good model fit | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1419.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/142.txt: they are directly connected to motoneurons | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1420.txt: they are able to analyse the emp dataset in a reasonable time on a standard server | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1421.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1422.txt: authors are convincingly supported by the data and the analyses conducted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1423.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1424.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1425.txt: they are using 468 genes expressions and | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1426.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1427.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1428.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1429.txt: they are more likely to be connected to the different properties of the composition of p | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/143.txt: authors are urged to take advantage of professional editing services | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/143.txt: they are relevant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1430.txt: they are between 0 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1431.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1432.txt: authors are primarily interested in estimating the live body mass of the dodo | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1432.txt: they are taking it a bit far in their argument that a composite skeleton is entirely unproblematic in this context | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1432.txt: authors are willing to add such a regression and use it to calculate dodo mass, i can heartily recommend publication after another round of reviews | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1433.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1434.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1435.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1436.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1437.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1438.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1439.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/144.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1440.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1441.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1442.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1443.txt: they are null-zero coded, the authors must not interpret the main effects | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1444.txt: they are already in on the scale 0-1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1445.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1446.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1447.txt: authors are right about this, at least with respect to chukars in the usa | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1447.txt: they are right about their conclusions--i just don | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1448.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1449.txt: they are representative in terms of their views | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/145.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1450.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1451.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1452.txt: authors are interested in this review, i will be happy to send them a copy of the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1453.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1454.txt: they are a much better option seeing they are used in the comparisons alongside the pie charts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1454.txt: authors are dealing with two different cryptic species when comparing individuals from two different populations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1455.txt: authors are over-stating what they have done | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1455.txt: they are using | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1455.txt: they are trying to say is that they wanted to predict an individual | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1455.txt: they are really good words to add to the suicide dictionary | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1455.txt: they are stating that they can do two things with their results, i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1456.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1457.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1458.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1459.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/146.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1460.txt: authors are very clear on this throughout the test | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1461.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1462.txt: they are measuring two different things, rather than not being identical because of experimental error, technique, etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1462.txt: they are analysing their model | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1462.txt: they are attempting to validate the model | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1463.txt: they are exogenous to parental encouragement | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1464.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1465.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1466.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1467.txt: author is not mentioned in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1468.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1469.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/147.txt: they are attempting to convey to consumers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1470.txt: they are interested in expanding into occasional review papers, if they are well done and informative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1470.txt: they are very instructive and helpful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1470.txt: they are developed, - cite examples where ontologies have been developed to describe resources related to phenotypes and environments - present a number of use cases that illustrate interesting questions involving phenotype and environment and describe challenges faced in linking phenotype and the environment, - provide two proof-of-concept illustrations, and - suggest two ontologies that might be used as models for linking although the authors provide data and analysis in their two proof-of-concept illustrations, it does not appear that this paper falls into the category of | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1470.txt: they are carrying out many separate, unplanned comparisons | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1470.txt: they are relevant to the rest of the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1471.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1472.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1473.txt: they are useful and informative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1473.txt: they are, but whether species can be taxonomically identified using vegetative traits vs reproductive traits | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1474.txt: authors are trying to do, i have some concerns about it that should be addressed before it is suitable for publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1475.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1476.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1477.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1478.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1478.txt: authors are trying to understand the functional significance of sperm variation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1478.txt: authors are considerably more cautious in the interpretation of the results given that sperm measures were assessed at variable time points post-mortem | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1479.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/148.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1480.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1481.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1482.txt: they are very light on their review of the word recognition field | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1482.txt: they are small, they may still be interesting, but the multillinearity problem becomes a much more important caveat | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1483.txt: they are concurrent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1484.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1485.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1486.txt: authors are suggested to address minor concerns raised by reviewers 1 and 3 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1486.txt: authors are fully supported by the experimental data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1487.txt: they are never defined, are unclear, and the first impression they give does not correspond well to the actual results they are being used to describe | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1487.txt: authors are trying to emphasize here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1487.txt: they are straightforward indices of otu | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1488.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1489.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/149.txt: authors are right calling them unimportant at the end of their manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1490.txt: they are considering, namely temperature and vitelline confinement | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1491.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1492.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1493.txt: they are to be commended on the edits | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1493.txt: authors are to be commended for a much more thorough interpretation and reporting of findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1493.txt: they are not included in any part of the analyses, but authors still attempt to link models to human cases by overlaying the probability of occurrence derived from models on to a map of human population density | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1494.txt: they are relatively minor | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1495.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1496.txt: they are still important and this should be acknowledged, rather than so quickly dismissed as the authors seem to do | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1497.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1498.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1499.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/15.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/150.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1500.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1501.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1502.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1503.txt: authors are also the group who supported most of the ohi exercises reviewed, the reference list is mainly self-citing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1503.txt: they are a useful contribution to the general literature assessing assessment approaches | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1504.txt: authors are clear in the introduction, i noticed that the sentence included in lines 74-77 is missing one verb | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1505.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1506.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1507.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1508.txt: they are better to be self-contained | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1509.txt: they are too pixelated at 100 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1509.txt: they are not so bad as to be unpublishable, but they could be improved | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/151.txt: they are similar in tone to those of reviewer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1510.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1511.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1512.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1513.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1514.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1515.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1516.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1517.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1518.txt: they are unclear and not representative of the conclusions made in the study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1518.txt: authors are taking about nr4a receptors in liver fibrosis, this study becomes the center of their contrasting results and should be introduced and discussed extensively | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1519.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/152.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1520.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1521.txt: they are reproducible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1521.txt: authors are focusing on the video selected for fig 4, rather than the ones the show ateles actually walking overground over multiple strides | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1521.txt: authors are responsible for making materials, code, raw data and associated protocols relevant to the submission available without delay | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1521.txt: authors are likely correct on this point, and i like the use of a platyrrhine analogy to test the hypothesis that these morphologies are indeed associated with lordosis in a lineage outside of hominoids | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1521.txt: authors are arguing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1521.txt: they are arguing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1521.txt: they are using | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1521.txt: they are generally quite thin dorsoventrally | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1521.txt: they are quite similar to those of hylobatids, but tend to be longer mediolaterally and orient more cranially, whereas those of hylobatids are blunter and laterally-oriented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1522.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1523.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1524.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1525.txt: they are not necessarily sharing the same community structures always | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1525.txt: they are not shared by all networks and part of them appear in each network | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1525.txt: they are so noisy | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1526.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1527.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1528.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1529.txt: they are still gender-specific exudates and infochemicals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/153.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1530.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1531.txt: they are not interpreting your design correctly, then the text is not clear enough for the reviewer to interpret what you have done | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1531.txt: authors are calling | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1531.txt: they are able to evaluate your manuscript, and will try to use the same reviewers with your revised submission | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1531.txt: they are used to describe particular fragments, for example in figure 1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1531.txt: authors are using light intensity data to support an explanation based on photosynthetic responses, which also requires certain wavelengths of light | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1531.txt: authors are using the appropriate data to conclude water motion had no effect, despite finding differences between deep and shallow sites | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1531.txt: authors are relating lux to a discussion involving photosynthesis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1532.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1533.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1534.txt: they are two different isolates of the same strain | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1534.txt: they are using standard error or standard deviation, the number of times each experiment was repeated is often not clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1534.txt: they are switching back and forth between techniques | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1534.txt: authors are addressing an interesting question within the yeast telomere field on whether the long non-coding rna tlc1, which minimally serves as the rna template for the specialized reverse transcriptase enzyme telomerase, can form a dimeric rna species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1535.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1536.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1537.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1538.txt: author is suggesting that recent suicidal desire is behind the correlations between two previously published psychological pain scales it appears to be another way of saying that psychological pain mediates the correlation between two psychological pain scales | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1538.txt: authors are referred to the following reference regarding corrections for multiple correlations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1539.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/154.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1540.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1541.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1542.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1543.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1544.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1545.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1546.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1547.txt: authors are not very happy about dealing the ces-d items as distributing normally, they should be referred to muthen and muthen | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1547.txt: authors are correct, then the practice of calculating a scale sum or scale mean and using that number as a continuous measure of the construct in question is wrong | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1548.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1549.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/155.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1550.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1551.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1552.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1553.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1554.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1555.txt: they are different in rate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1555.txt: they are present | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1555.txt: they are measured | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1556.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1557.txt: author is also a co-corresponding author, the new criterion could prescribe that the country affiliation remains to be the first affiliation of the first author | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1557.txt: they are eye diseases for sure, just not fall in | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1558.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1559.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/156.txt: authors are explicit with their aim about generalizing previous results from the swedish general population | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1560.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1561.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1562.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1563.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1564.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1565.txt: they are likely not to be processed differently from upright faces | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1566.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1567.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1568.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1569.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/157.txt: authors are interested in repeating a test with noise-cleaned sequence data and a more robust otu table, i happily volunteer to help out with data-treatment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1570.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1571.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1572.txt: authors are a bit irrelevant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1572.txt: they are proposing a new species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1572.txt: they are sister taxa and a less scrupulous taxonomist might still name a new genus for m | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1572.txt: authors are using excellent data to reach new conclusions based on this new fossil that has been discovered | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1573.txt: they are described as semi-volatile with the ability to be sorbed on surface and to revolatilize | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1574.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1575.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1576.txt: they are already at hand | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1576.txt: they are trying to test the hypothesis that the position with respect to the river is a major determinant of community structure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1577.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1578.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1579.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/158.txt: they are not percent scores | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/158.txt: they are saying that biological categorisations do not require specialised taxonomy knowledge but, in this case, a recognition of the basic rules governing the classifications | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/158.txt: they are, in fact, shared traits | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1580.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1581.txt: they are na | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1582.txt: authors are opening themselves up to criticism that perhaps the original goal of the research was never designed to address | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1582.txt: authors are trying to publish a descriptive paper aimed at a general audience, it would be beneficial to keep things simple - the summary of what organisms were generally common in the 50 houses, how many families you encountered | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1582.txt: they are good photos | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1582.txt: they are being used here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1582.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1583.txt: they are largely language issues, although there is an issue with formulation of one of the phylogenetic characters | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1584.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1585.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1586.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1587.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1588.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1589.txt: they are meant to refer to the y-axis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1589.txt: authors are attempting to do | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/159.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1590.txt: they are relevant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1590.txt: they are altered by acute stressors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1591.txt: authors are suggesting opposing transmission strategies between sbv and dwv, and considering co-infection was administered in the study it is again conspicuously absent from the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1592.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1593.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1594.txt: they are used interchangeably throughout the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1594.txt: they are meaningful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1594.txt: they are more prone to such injuries | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1595.txt: they are currently displayed as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1595.txt: they are mean annual increment and current annual increment or periodic annual increment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1596.txt: they are two separate equations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1596.txt: they are believed to act as reservoirs for coral diseases pathogens as per the 2013 sweet et al paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1597.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1598.txt: they are grouped within the clade e | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1599.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/16.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/160.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1600.txt: they are applauded for doing so | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1601.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1602.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1603.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1604.txt: authors are invited to add a section to describe the main goal of their paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1604.txt: authors are encouraged to review discussion in line with theoretical model and revised theoretical framework | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1605.txt: they are highly dependent on total sequence numbers, such as the analyses of abundances in fig | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1605.txt: they are better to cultivate axillary bacterial samples | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1605.txt: they are added in high quantities in antiperspirants | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1606.txt: they are significant in the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1607.txt: authors are able to get closed bacterial genomes from illumina data, much less from a metagenomic assembly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1607.txt: they are the discoverers of, and world experts on, the per phylum | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1607.txt: authors are planning on peribacter | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1608.txt: they are very inconsistent not only terms of the particular bones, but also skull outlines, snout-occipital condyle lengths, etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1608.txt: author is to be commended on his very diligent and thorough paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1609.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/161.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/161.txt: they are indeed both necessary, i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1610.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1611.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1612.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1613.txt: they are both corrupted or | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1613.txt: they are not primary in medicine, patients | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1614.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1615.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1616.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1617.txt: they are relatively fewer in number than fovea | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1617.txt: they are not directly comparable to wiesel and hubel as sentence suggests | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1618.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1619.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/162.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1620.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1621.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1622.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1623.txt: they are clearly stated and represent a unified publishable unit | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1624.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1625.txt: they are representative enough to show increased number of the blood vessels | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1626.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1627.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1628.txt: they are present in the in vitro assay | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1629.txt: authors are not correctly cited | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/163.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1630.txt: they are central to the analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1630.txt: they are reviewed for instance by guisan | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1631.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1632.txt: authors are not highlighting the potential toxicity of the use of the preparation used to intoxicated the rats | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1632.txt: authors are very speculative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1633.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1634.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1635.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1636.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1637.txt: authors are encouraged to explore review articles | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1638.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1639.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/164.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1640.txt: authors are taking relative values how the control | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1640.txt: authors are invited to investigate the role of mitochondrial distress and | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1640.txt: they are labelled b, c, c, d, b, e, f, f, g | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1641.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1642.txt: they are preferentially excluded from protein surface | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1642.txt: authors are aware of this scenario | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1642.txt: authors are restricted to make ill defined comparisons like | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1643.txt: they are presented, cannot support the ideas proposed by the authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1644.txt: authors are reporting their work on the intrinsic association between taste words and visual shape with two experiments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1644.txt: authors are reporting are to the point and interesting | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1645.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1646.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1647.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1648.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1649.txt: authors are still valid, but the numbers or methods do not seem without bias | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1649.txt: they are made | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1649.txt: they are reported in human studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/165.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1650.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1651.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1652.txt: authors are planning to include the table with their plot | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1653.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1654.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1655.txt: they are very fast to talk about measures and variables already in the introduction, rather than talking about concepts and | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1655.txt: authors are investigating each of the variables at hand in relation to achieving motive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1655.txt: they are relevant to the content of the article | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1656.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1657.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1658.txt: they are appropriate is another question | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1658.txt: author is trying to have it both ways | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1658.txt: they are considered a single taxon if yes they are two or more taxa | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1658.txt: they are largely irrelevant to taxon identification, unless the author wants to commit the same error as some of the early authors he criticizes, i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1659.txt: they are deposited | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/166.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1660.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1661.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1662.txt: they are proposing a new hiv disclosure model | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1662.txt: they are proposing in the context of what it brings to the literature relative to the several other disclosure models that are already published | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1663.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1664.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1665.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1666.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1667.txt: they are formulated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1668.txt: they are available anyways when this fact is not mentioned in the main text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1669.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/167.txt: authors are worried about the computational burden for their server, they can set up accounts for the reviewers only, without making their galaxy server public | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1670.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1671.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1672.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1673.txt: authors are doing and how they are doing it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1673.txt: authors are considering is not clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1673.txt: authors are trying to tackle | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1673.txt: they are trying to do | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1674.txt: they are functionally neutral | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1674.txt: authors are encourage to explain this better in method | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1675.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1676.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1677.txt: they are available | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1678.txt: authors are well aware that nucleotide variation and tajima | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1679.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/168.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1680.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1681.txt: they are hidden in trees | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1682.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1683.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1684.txt: they are important tooth development genes but there are no references to discuss why those genes were picked | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1685.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1686.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1687.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1688.txt: authors are transparent about | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1689.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/169.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1690.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1691.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1692.txt: authors are tackling is the identification of novel amplicons, not surprisingly sequence similarity networks reported the less amount of novel amplicons due the implicit continuos nature of the network | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1692.txt: they are highly interesting to track the evolutionary paths of the different otus members and can be used as an additional source of information to get a better understanding of the observed diversity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1693.txt: authors are trying to communicate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1693.txt: authors are alluding to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1693.txt: they are unlikely | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1693.txt: they are about to compete | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1693.txt: they are gaining experience with the task throughout | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1694.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1695.txt: they are the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1696.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1697.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1698.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1699.txt: they are statistically significant or not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/17.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/170.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1700.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1701.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1702.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1703.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1704.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1705.txt: they are more diverse wrt habitat than previously thought | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1706.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1707.txt: they are tool users in the wild or not, since this is a test that requires tool use and not all readers will be familiar with corvid capabilities in this context | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1707.txt: they are expected to fail | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1708.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1709.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/171.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1710.txt: they are healthy subjects, it doesn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1711.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1712.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1713.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1714.txt: they are able to demonstrate some support for three proposed mechanisms that could be operating | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1715.txt: they are included, i assume the authors want to communicate the information they contain | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1715.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1715.txt: they are used in the literature to denote different things | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1716.txt: authors are using ultrasound thermal ablation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1717.txt: authors are working with paleontological data, for this reason they must provide a better justification of its choosing the probability approaches | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1718.txt: they are functionally related | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1719.txt: authors are welcome to coin a new or raise an old name for the clade | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1719.txt: they are showing well-supported clades in this section, i will suggest adding these results in another paragraph or just named it in the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1719.txt: authors are showing here a summary of all the well-supported clades in all analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1719.txt: authors are highlighting the importance of enhance both collection and analyses of genomic data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1719.txt: authors are discussing and comparing data, i extremely recommend them to use source results as in griswold et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/172.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1720.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1721.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1722.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1723.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1724.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1725.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1726.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1727.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1728.txt: they are invasive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1729.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/173.txt: they are found with other species, then it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1730.txt: they are largely qualitative and the treatment effects quite apparent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1730.txt: they are likely to be reliable, but the lack of replication is a major flaw | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1731.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1732.txt: they are working with coral reefs however in some parts the text authors refer to reefs, this can be confusing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1733.txt: they are home made, please add procedure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1733.txt: they are very short sessions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1733.txt: authors are the absence of real replicates in overtime and about the conclusions discussed by the authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1733.txt: authors are trying to identify bioindicators but there is no correlation to microbial communities or an attempt at validating these candidates bioindicators in other soils | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1734.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1735.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1736.txt: they are discussed as separate entities but they are possibly linked | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1737.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1738.txt: they are more reluctant to take ltbi treatment, and because of the possible threat to their patients if they develop active tb | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1739.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/174.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1740.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1741.txt: they are not significant line 305, do the authors refer to parents | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1741.txt: they are few studies that relate climate change to flooding, the consequences on the health of populations, specifically the nutritional status, and the lifestyle of families | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1742.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1743.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1744.txt: they are time points to separate middle | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1745.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1746.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1747.txt: they are also highlighting the need for additional specific environmental measurements as identified in your discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1748.txt: authors are correct, however, in noting the impressively large sample their study brings to bear on these issues, which is particularly appropriate for several of the stats employed here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1748.txt: they are multidimensional in the cfa analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1749.txt: they are sure about the individuals involved | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/175.txt: authors are aware of the appropriate use of | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1750.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1751.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1752.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1753.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1754.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1755.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1756.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1757.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1758.txt: authors are quite vague regarding diuron concentrations in time in general | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1759.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/176.txt: they are not so common elsewhere | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/176.txt: they are both beta-lactams but different subclasses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1760.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1761.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1762.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1763.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1764.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1765.txt: they are more convinced | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1765.txt: authors are referring to the pubic symphysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1766.txt: they are not influenced by the treatment of the chick | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1766.txt: authors are trying to say that in some species, exposure of chicks with the same parasite may result in either a blocking effect or a priming effect | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1767.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1768.txt: authors are perfectly right when saying that better understanding of adipose tissue | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1769.txt: they are essentially identical words | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/177.txt: they are related to monogenic disorders when only one mutation in one gene is causative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1770.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1771.txt: authors are working with very rare and precious human embryonic tissue, so i do not want to insist that they embark on large scale repetition of the immunohistochemistry | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1771.txt: they are using mouse antibodies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1771.txt: they are presented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1772.txt: authors are explaining what has previously been done, or stating that this is what they intend to do in their study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1772.txt: authors are using would also be beneficial for the reader here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1772.txt: authors are comparing the correlation coefficients between each cpt test and something else but it isn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1773.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1774.txt: they are residents of zhytomir region | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1775.txt: authors are highlighting some interesting avenues for future studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1775.txt: they are appropriate for considering females, but not males, and it remains unclear whether male-male social relationships in these species mirror those of females | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1776.txt: author is certainly correct to point out the possible error inherent in using a relatively low frame rate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1777.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1778.txt: author is to be applauded for his in-depth studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1779.txt: they are in developmental biology volume 300 issue 1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/178.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1780.txt: they are in the above section page 11 lines 212-213 the statement here should be rewritten to point out the coverage of the present study otherwise it is confusing page 11 line 216-218 the end of the statement is about wastewater treatment plants instead of wastewaters therefore it should be rewritten in a correct way page 17 lines 350-353 the statement here should be rewritten to clarify its meaning page 19 lines 392-394 the bibliography format is incorrect page 20 lines 400-401 the bibliography format is incorrect and the article title is incorrectly written page 21 lines 427-429 the article title is incorrectly written page 22 lines 456-457 the bibliography format is incorrect page 23 line 464 there is an error in pages numbers in the bibliography cite this review as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1781.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1782.txt: they are they are descended from other group 1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1782.txt: authors are referring to the trend from hours 0 to 24, or from hours 24 to day 10 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1783.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1784.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1785.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1786.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1787.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1788.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1789.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/179.txt: authors are free to ignore this comment if they feel strongly otherwise | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1790.txt: authors are referring to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1791.txt: they are identical to other included structures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1791.txt: authors are encouraged to provide literature evidence that the specification of 5a is suitable for flexible docking | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1791.txt: they are cofactors or substrates or modified residues | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1791.txt: authors are strongly encouraged to check with the english native speaking expert and submit the revised version | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1792.txt: they are not supposed to be concentrated in the central area | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1793.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1794.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1795.txt: they are minor enough that they could likely be incorporated at the proof stage | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1796.txt: authors are testing the nc-part approach to species delimitation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1797.txt: they are correct | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1798.txt: authors are talking about all chinese authors, either living in china or not, whereas what they mean is authors who are based in mainland china, hong kong and taiwan | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1798.txt: they are both giving a similar message | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1798.txt: authors are talking about the journals from china | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1798.txt: they are talking about the articles by authors based in china which are published in those journals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1799.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/18.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/180.txt: they are essentially nuclear proteins in trypanosomatids | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1800.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1801.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1802.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1803.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1804.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1805.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1806.txt: authors are interested in casas-crivill | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1806.txt: they are 150 m apart | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1807.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1808.txt: they are dealing with as they contemplate the rest of the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1808.txt: authors are reporting negative results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1808.txt: they are the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1809.txt: they are commented as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1809.txt: authors are testing, is not relevant enough, mainly because they are not considering some important aspects about black howlers biology | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1809.txt: they are not well supported, there are missing comparison between the findings found in the present study and some other studies made under the same line of knowledge | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/181.txt: they are in the solution structure of the c terminus alone, but the chains splay apart when they form a complex with the n terminus in all the structures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1810.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1811.txt: authors are to be commended for providing all data and code for their study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1811.txt: authors are to be commended for providing all data and code for their study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1812.txt: authors are right for the first time | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1812.txt: authors are right for the first time | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1813.txt: they are a results of such a small sampling extent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1813.txt: authors are likely trying to be conservative in their recommendations, especially since goldberg and waits did find a bias when all siblings were included | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1814.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1815.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1816.txt: authors are commended for their dna barcoding and chlorophyll a analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1816.txt: they are redundant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1816.txt: they are found | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1816.txt: they are of the same species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1817.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1818.txt: they are referring to t2dm or t1dm or both | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1818.txt: they are supposed to be scored per their manual instructions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1819.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/182.txt: authors are to be commended for a particularly fastidious and patient revision of the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/182.txt: authors are to be commended on a rigorous, substantive body of work in this manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1820.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1821.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1822.txt: they are inter-tangled | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1823.txt: authors are not doing themselves a favor | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1824.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1825.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1826.txt: they are syntactically incorrect | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1827.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1828.txt: they are addressing the authors have resolved the majority of my concerns | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1828.txt: they are a tiny part of the total transcriptome | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1829.txt: they are not, this could affect the data presented on apparent removal | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/183.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1830.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1831.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1832.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1833.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1834.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1835.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1836.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1837.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1838.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1839.txt: they are obtained are robust and controlled | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/184.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1840.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1841.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1842.txt: authors are referring to species not genera | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1842.txt: authors are not making in this sentence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1842.txt: authors are only comparing growth in davis, ca to the iss, the assumption seems to be that b | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1843.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1844.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1845.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1846.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1847.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1848.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1849.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/185.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1850.txt: authors are required to provide a street address this didn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1851.txt: they are very high or not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1851.txt: they are going to be reported at all | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1852.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1853.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1854.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1855.txt: they are increasingly used for studies of | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1855.txt: authors are asked though why pcr products were sized on etbr | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1856.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1857.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1858.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1859.txt: they are poorly reported and interpreted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/186.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1860.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1861.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1862.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1863.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1864.txt: authors are directly testing this hypothesis, so it seems crucial that this work be referenced | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1865.txt: they are all giving us essentially the same information, so i would suggest removing 2 of them from the main body of the text and either moving the other 2 to supplementary materials where the k analyses are now | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1866.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1867.txt: they are delineated in the ms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1868.txt: authors are referring to in their rebuttal letter, which did in most cases not match any of the files | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1868.txt: they are referring to previous work in the field, which should have references, and when they are describing and discussing their own results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1869.txt: authors are to be commended for having redone the complete experiment and analysis using the current pacbio sequencing technology | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1869.txt: authors are well-versed in the technical issues associated with the use of this data, and have presented a compelling case that this platform may not offer sufficient advantages in terms of error rates | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1869.txt: they are biases of the platform, however, that would be a major problem, so it would be good to have some clarification on this point | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/187.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1870.txt: they are used, both in the abstract and again in the main text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1871.txt: authors are sensitive to biases that may be introduced by low abundance, as well as the sampling procedure used to quantify evi | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1872.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1873.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1874.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1875.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1876.txt: authors are appropriately cautious about its interpretation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1877.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1878.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1879.txt: they are additive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1879.txt: they are described insufficiently | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/188.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1880.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1881.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1882.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1883.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1884.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1885.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1886.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1887.txt: they are not necessarily at the bottom of the jcr category, they are simply not in the jcr category | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1888.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1889.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/189.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1890.txt: author is explained by the fact that cellular toxicity is decreased by parp-1 inhibitors and that more cell divide in the treated samples | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1891.txt: they are full of single-base insertions, deletions and stop codons | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1892.txt: they are using in the first place | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1892.txt: authors are conflating stochasticity with uncertainty | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1892.txt: they are just parameters | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1892.txt: they are intolerably wide | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1892.txt: authors are assuming, or with the model formulation itself | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1892.txt: they are just | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1892.txt: authors are using an extremely unusual definition of r | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1892.txt: they are also estimated in a piece-wise manner | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1893.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1894.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1895.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1896.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1897.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1898.txt: they are indeed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1899.txt: they are harmful and | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/19.txt: authors are responsible for making materials, data and associated protocols available to readers without delay | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/190.txt: they are unrooted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/190.txt: they are unrooted trees | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/190.txt: they are not connected to taxa that have formal names | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1900.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1901.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1902.txt: they are too dismissive of the results of these trials | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1902.txt: they are not necessarily prescribed to all people with elevated cholesterol | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1903.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1904.txt: they are negative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1905.txt: they are to be reported in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1905.txt: they are unreliable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1906.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1907.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1908.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1909.txt: they are certainly right | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/191.txt: they are adequate if not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/191.txt: they are borderline publishable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1910.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1911.txt: authors are willing to rework the manuscript and resubmit it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1911.txt: they are changing conditions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1911.txt: they are not overestimating numbers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1911.txt: they are also apex predators, commonly traveling in open ocean waters, along with other apex predators associated to those tuna schools | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1912.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1913.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1914.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1915.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1916.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1917.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1918.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1919.txt: they are more susceptible at low concentrations to a protonophore | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1919.txt: authors are reproducible or not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/192.txt: authors are to be commended on a much improved manuscript, with the majority of reviewers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/192.txt: authors are correct that different cell types express different cofactors, a less committed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1920.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1921.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1922.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1923.txt: authors are very vague in their wording in this context throughout the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1924.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1925.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1926.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1927.txt: authors are handling categorical variables | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1927.txt: they are different, the whole analyses should be two sets | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1928.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1929.txt: they are no longer efficient | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/193.txt: they are related to both the exposure and the outcome | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/193.txt: they are worth mentioning except perhaps in that context | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/193.txt: they are not statistically significant even though it is easy to obtain significance with the large sample and high prevalence of allergic rhinitis and eye | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1930.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1931.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1932.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1933.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1934.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1935.txt: authors are choosing an empirical cutoff of p | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1935.txt: they are used to draw conclusions from actual data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1936.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1937.txt: they are satisfied with the revisions, as am i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1938.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1939.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/194.txt: they are the only two studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/194.txt: authors are well aware of the limitations of their conclusions derived from the methods applied | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1940.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1941.txt: they are not discussing the carnivores and primates from drimolen | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1941.txt: they are published elsewhere, but we could probably cut out some of this duplication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1941.txt: they are not really | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1942.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1943.txt: they are composed of tissues | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1944.txt: author is proposing it only for s | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1945.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1946.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1947.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1948.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1949.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/195.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1950.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1951.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1952.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1953.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1954.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1955.txt: authors are providing the number of genomic features in which the variants occur | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1956.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1957.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1958.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1959.txt: they are fully developed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/196.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1960.txt: they are as useful as gopros in performing the proposed task | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1960.txt: authors are likely aiming for | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1961.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1962.txt: they are chewed or not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1963.txt: they are not peltodoris marmorata | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1963.txt: they are important to avoid later taxonomic confusion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1963.txt: they are all consistent in their request for substantial revision prior to publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1963.txt: authors are trying to include museum numbers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1963.txt: they are ok but, in the notes from the author, he says that they are sequencing the new berthella | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1964.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1965.txt: they are no excluded in the analysis, its potential confounding effect on the analyte concentrations should be discussed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1966.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1967.txt: they are distantly related according to the genetic data, but their diets have similar structural properties and they overlap quite a bit in shape | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1967.txt: they are actually stem as kay advocates | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1967.txt: they are telling you something about function | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1967.txt: authors are writing in a second language | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1967.txt: they are attempting an analysis of molar shape to see if it helps clarify anything or support one hypothesis or another | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1967.txt: they are interested in | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1968.txt: they are referred to in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1969.txt: they are necessary for this manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/197.txt: they are clearly visible in printed version of the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/197.txt: they are not the same thing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1970.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1971.txt: they are required other motor regulation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1972.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1973.txt: they are not well structured and have some mistakes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1973.txt: they are some fraction of picoeukaryotes and total bacteria, but the figure title suggests that specific heterotrophs are described | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1973.txt: they are symbiotic, but doesn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1974.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1975.txt: author is a bit strong in attributing the potential for causal cognition by the subjects | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1976.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1977.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1978.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1979.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/198.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1980.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1981.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1982.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1983.txt: authors are probably trying to submit another manuscript with more details | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1984.txt: authors are assuming mortality was caused by competition | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1985.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1986.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1987.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1988.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1989.txt: they are consistent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/199.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1990.txt: they are minor, you don | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1990.txt: they are categorical | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1991.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1992.txt: authors are using an inflammatory model | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1992.txt: they are evaluating is from np cells and not raw cells | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1993.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1994.txt: authors are trying to achieve with their study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1995.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1996.txt: they are all the same data and might better be different parts of the same figure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1996.txt: they are amplifying | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1997.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1998.txt: they are well structured, well referenced and fit well in the manuscript body | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/1999.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/20.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/200.txt: authors are expected to provide the genbank accession numbers of their sequences when submit the revision | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/200.txt: authors are also interested in seeing the impact of migratory birds and human introductions on the phylogeography | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2000.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2001.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2002.txt: they are too long and difficult to understand | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2002.txt: they are able to degrade the insecticide | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2003.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2004.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2005.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2006.txt: they are under 16 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2006.txt: they are over sixteen they do not require parental approval | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2007.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2008.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2009.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/201.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2010.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2011.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2012.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2013.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2014.txt: they are statistically significant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2015.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2016.txt: authors are discussing de novo assembly or reference-based assembly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2017.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2018.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2019.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/202.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2020.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2021.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2022.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2023.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2024.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2025.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2026.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2027.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2028.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2029.txt: they are able to reduce the sample size heterogeneity among categories | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/203.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2030.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2031.txt: they are aerobic | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2032.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2033.txt: authors are unable to reach conclusions about their original research question | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2033.txt: authors are testing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2034.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2035.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2036.txt: they are claimed to show | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2036.txt: they are referring to in every case | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2037.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2038.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2039.txt: authors are interested in promoting the application of these results in land use planning it would be helpful if they could provide a more straightforward interpretation of how this research might guide the development of more bird-friendly suburbs and exurban areas | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/204.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2040.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2041.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2042.txt: authors are primarily concerned with the question of which es | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2043.txt: they are the same hormone in fact | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2044.txt: they are using aic to select best model which is straightforward | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2045.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2046.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2047.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2048.txt: authors are right when they state that the challenge is to determine the processes that are involved in the configuration of the interactions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2049.txt: they are weak and strong are fully consistent with your statistical evidence and with a clear exposition of the pattern in the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2049.txt: they are relevant variables | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2049.txt: authors are sure about where the ants are returning to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2049.txt: authors are overstepping their data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2049.txt: they are testing more clearly in the introduction | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/205.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2050.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2051.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2052.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2053.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2054.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2055.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2056.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2057.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2058.txt: authors are recommended to provide the human data, if they insist to provide the conclusion using human aging-related proteins | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2058.txt: authors are recommended to amend manuscript according to reviewers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2059.txt: they are not discussed in much detail | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2059.txt: they are messy, and imply motion from one shape to another, when actually what the analysis represents is variability | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/206.txt: authors are aiming much too high here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2060.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2061.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2062.txt: they are purely speculating at this point | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2063.txt: they are important confounding factors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2064.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2065.txt: they are not major reservoirs solely based on a fecal survey | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2065.txt: they are all exposed to the same aquatic source, which may be different to humans, are they likely to be infected in the first place | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2065.txt: they are true for the scale the study was done on | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2065.txt: they are not related to transmission in australia, i look forward to the work of wallace et al, but in a different context, with different hosts, different climate conditions, it still has to be demonstrated that they are implicated in transmission in west africa | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2066.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2067.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2068.txt: they are rather the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2068.txt: they are difficult to compare and contrast and leave me unsure of the conclusions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2069.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/207.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2070.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2071.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2072.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2073.txt: authors are invited to review work by sato et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2074.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2075.txt: authors are probably correct that the higher ri is due to missing data in the postcranial data set, so they should give the percentage of missing data for each of the sets | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2076.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2077.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2078.txt: authors are right ahl has effect on rhlr production however, i wonder whether authors have considered that in the supernatant contain also rhamnolipids, do rhamnolipids have any effect | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2079.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/208.txt: they are devoid entirely of organic matter after the initial and | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/208.txt: they are asking | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/208.txt: authors are quite careful to mention that these results reflect reef accretion and not necessarily how the corals themselves are dealing with the acidification, thus providing a new insight in that perspective | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2080.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2081.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2082.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2083.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2084.txt: authors are missing important references to recent work that supports their own, including the loh et al peerj paper, which also finds no relationship between fish abundance and seaweed cover, and the recent work of burkepile et al, which suggests that higher fish abundance results in greater nutrient inputs that enhance seaweed cover | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2085.txt: they are influenced by lizard microhabitat use | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2086.txt: they are not the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2087.txt: authors are recommended to describe how they conducted the data collection, such as via e-mail, mail, or in person, as well as a brief statement of research procedure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2087.txt: authors are recommended to describe how they conducted the data collection, such as via e-mail, mail, or in person, as well as a brief statement of research procedure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2087.txt: authors are suggested to update the references cited in this manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2088.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2089.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/209.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2090.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2091.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2092.txt: authors are dealing with reproq that they cite as validated in previous publications as well as the who responsiveness model | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2092.txt: they are using adding them to the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2093.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2094.txt: authors are embedded above | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2095.txt: they are happy with their title | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2095.txt: they are both quite positive about your submission, however, as you will see down below, they have minor concerns that need to be addressed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2096.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2097.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2098.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2099.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/21.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/210.txt: they are important and lays the foundation for further research | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2100.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2101.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2102.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2103.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2104.txt: they are truly independent of all sampling and extraction variations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2105.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2106.txt: authors are clear on the lack of a directional prediction | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2107.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2108.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2109.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/211.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2110.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2111.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2112.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2113.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2114.txt: authors are reporting on nf, a specific type of brief intervention, a brief description of what brief interventions are would be useful for the reader unfamiliar with them | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2115.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2116.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2117.txt: authors are rather reluctant in providing references to primary literature - duellman | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2117.txt: they are referred to here far too often, when the authors in fact should have looked up | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2117.txt: authors are arguing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2117.txt: authors are providing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2117.txt: authors are providing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2118.txt: they are better located at the beginning of the results section followed by a clear summary figure or table | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2119.txt: they are listed as 1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/212.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2120.txt: they are expensive, time consuming, and alter salmon behavior | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2121.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2122.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2123.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2124.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2125.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2126.txt: authors are assuming a direct and positive relationship between birds perch frequency and the quantity of seeds being delivered underneath such perches, despite being possible that such a relation exists it is not proved not even supported with literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2126.txt: authors are following they try to determine deposition probability as explained above and then relate such deposition patterns with the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2127.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2128.txt: they are movable, and so might cause inaccurate measures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2129.txt: they are as follows | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/213.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2130.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2131.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2132.txt: they are indeed original | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2132.txt: they are, given their consistent orientation on different tooth surfaces, but best to be sure and cover your bases | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2132.txt: author is referred to the following article | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2133.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2134.txt: they are able to detect vpg proteins by sds-page | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2135.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2136.txt: authors are requested to address the following issue | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2136.txt: they are used in the node vdw definition | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2136.txt: they are not as much connected to other residues as they are at the surface of the protein | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2137.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2138.txt: they are non-overlapping | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2138.txt: they are of sufficient resolution - at least i can see the detail i need to see | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2138.txt: they are indeed new species and phylogenetic analysis reveals distinction between different river systems | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2139.txt: authors are willing to make the changes, i can review the paper again | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/214.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2140.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2141.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2142.txt: authors are requested to comment on their data in relation to previously published studies, including the observation that the ablation of mmp14 causes severe malnutrition due to jaw defects that prevent feeding | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2142.txt: authors are cautioned regarding statements such as on lines 237-239 suggesting mmp14 inhibition as a therapy for metabolic syndrome | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2143.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2144.txt: they are presented as part of an itemized list of results of this analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2145.txt: they are involved in na | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2146.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2147.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2148.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2149.txt: authors are suggested to propose a scientific question based on some rationales or mechanism background in terms of the importance or the physiological significance in salinity adaptation of the species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/215.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2150.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2151.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2152.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2153.txt: they are 21 experience risk for hed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2154.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2155.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2156.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2157.txt: they are establishing, and although technically only a single specimen | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2158.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2159.txt: authors are attempting to draw | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2159.txt: they are using velocity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/216.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2160.txt: they are just small | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2161.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2162.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2163.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2164.txt: authors are very thorough in their presentation of the experimental design | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2164.txt: authors are congratulated on a significant amount of work that combines many state-of-the-art techniques | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2164.txt: they are encouraged to describe more clearly what exactly is contributing to the difference in stresses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2165.txt: authors are clear that the model will need further comparison with data but are plausible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2166.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2167.txt: they are indeed correct, my apologies for the original comment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2168.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2169.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/217.txt: they are not the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2170.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2171.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2172.txt: authors are doing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2172.txt: authors are examining the impact of how the source trees are merged within the superfine pipeline | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2172.txt: authors are only looking at the accuracy of the scm tree, and not of the final tree returned after the second step | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2172.txt: they are only examining the impact on the scm tree, the study is still valuable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2173.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2174.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2175.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2176.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2177.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2178.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2179.txt: they are hunting for internal codling moth larvae, occur later in the season when the fruit is more ripe and softer for beak penetration | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/218.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2180.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2181.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2182.txt: they are currently not in | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2183.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2184.txt: they are also go or no-go signals, based on their content | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2184.txt: they are either in line with the anova results, or had insufficient data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2185.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2186.txt: they are referring to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2187.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2188.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2189.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/219.txt: authors are not easy to interpret with reference to overly general hypotheses, but that is only to be expected from something as complex as the cerrado, which is actually a mosaic of landscapes with varying geological histories | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2190.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2191.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2192.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2193.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2194.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2195.txt: authors are trying to convey | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2195.txt: authors are trying to convey to the readers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2196.txt: they are not statistically supported | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2196.txt: they are referring to the continuous connection of tissue on o | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2197.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2198.txt: they are not immature anymore | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2199.txt: authors are right to state there have been few experimental | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2199.txt: they are relevant and meaningful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2199.txt: they are wrong but they are not clear to me from the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2199.txt: they are as a justification | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/22.txt: they are not stated as clearly as they could be | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/22.txt: they are learning in a second language | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/220.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2200.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2201.txt: they are very different between each family, resulting of many ecological, behavioral and evolutionary factors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2201.txt: they are not transferable even between closely related clades | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2201.txt: they are related | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2202.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2203.txt: they are not self explanatory | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2203.txt: authors are encouraged to take professional help to improve the manuscript to avoid grammatical errors and to improve the overall presentation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2204.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2205.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2206.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2207.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2208.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2209.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/221.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2210.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2211.txt: they are not at this point ready for their use by clinicians | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2211.txt: authors are limited by existing data, that is the situation in all research and method development | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2212.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2213.txt: they are used for biofouling and antifouling field tests, the possible combined effects of testing components with copper should be considered | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2214.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2215.txt: they are trying all kinds of various responses without the inhibition that delays novel responses in slower learners | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2215.txt: they are the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2216.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2217.txt: they are confusing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2217.txt: authors are showing double traces in each panel in fig 1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2218.txt: authors are trying to make here with the insertion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2219.txt: authors are interested in applied entomology and they try to conclude about practical aspects, rather than on mechanisms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/222.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2220.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2221.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2222.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2223.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2224.txt: authors are given for two spider species mentioned in lines 216, 218, but not for species mentioned on lines 226, 227 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2225.txt: they are less healthy in some way, and that this issue leads them both to be human-reared and to display more abnormal behaviors in the future | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2226.txt: they are not extensive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2227.txt: authors are right that the prevalence of branching trees suggests that concurrent mutations are common, but the presence of a branching tree by itself is not definitive proof in any single case | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2227.txt: authors are arguing that if there is a single mutation that reaches substantial frequency without any other identified mutation, it must be beneficial | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2227.txt: authors are drawing are almost certainly correct | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2228.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2229.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/223.txt: authors are recording the erps in one subject while watching either own species faces | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/223.txt: they are stating that the comparative approach should | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/223.txt: authors are limiting their review to the chimpanzee literature but they may want to cite a review from tsao about the neural network involved in face processing in macaques which present also a lot of similarities with the human system | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/223.txt: authors are not making any clear prediction in term of erps | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/223.txt: authors are mentioning the difference between own | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2230.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2231.txt: authors are to be commended on good experimental design, and their development and validation of a successful treatment innovation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2232.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2233.txt: they are using the same software on the same dataset, it seems strange to me that two different models were chosen as the optimal one | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2233.txt: authors are uncovering a really interesting phenomenon and distribution pattern here, and it would in my view render it more palatable to non-specialists if these results are put in a somewhat wider framework in this way | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2233.txt: they are not well organized, because i believe that the first figure should be corresponding to the distribution map | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2233.txt: they are only based on genetic distances | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2234.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2235.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2236.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2237.txt: authors are valid and important | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2238.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2239.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/224.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2240.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2241.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2242.txt: authors are doing themselves a disservice by not clearly articulating | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2242.txt: they are nearly invisible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2242.txt: authors are well-aware, the overall material properties of a complex structure such as the head is more than its component parts, and in fem validating the model is of great import | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2243.txt: authors are very general with the use of the word | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2244.txt: authors are right in saying that there are many others papers on this subject that are completely | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2244.txt: authors are free to pursue any avenue of research but they must be, in my opinion, asked | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2244.txt: authors are linking their findings to broader applied ecological concepts and examples here, but i feel they are pushing things a little with the data presented here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2245.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2246.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2247.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2248.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2249.txt: authors are standard methods and have been applied properly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2249.txt: authors are well aware of the problem | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2249.txt: they are nicotinic acetylcholine receptor | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2249.txt: they are likely to have an impact | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/225.txt: they are unlikely to get a mating with a small ornament | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/225.txt: they are very interesting | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2250.txt: they are working from | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2250.txt: they are making the claim that resource abundance | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2250.txt: authors are missing a chance to really highlight what is unique about their study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2251.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2252.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2253.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2254.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2255.txt: they are referenced appropriately although some deficiencies have been noted which could be addressed by more thorough proof-reading | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2255.txt: they are self-contained | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2256.txt: they are all carrying a parasite | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2257.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2258.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2259.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/226.txt: they are less prone to homoplasy | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2260.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2261.txt: they are more easily comparable fig | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2262.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2263.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2264.txt: they are in themselves not a major issue, as long as they are fully disclosed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2264.txt: authors are echoing the perspective of the pay it forward members | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2265.txt: they are not mentioned in the text, neither in the results, nor in the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2266.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2267.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2268.txt: they are used in a minor revision or not should by no means preclude acceptance of the paper which in my opinion may be published forthwith | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2269.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/227.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2270.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2271.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2272.txt: authors are supported by rna-seq data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2272.txt: authors are still trying to oversell their finding, which make them focusing on points or performing analyses that are not really relevant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2273.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2274.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2275.txt: they are discussed in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2276.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2277.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2278.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2279.txt: authors are trying to show molecular tools in plant pathology and make them available to other research communities | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/228.txt: they are hardly visible because they overlap | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/228.txt: they are generally small, there are some instances | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/228.txt: they are important | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/228.txt: they are aware of that and end the paper, in the last paragraph, by saying that their study highlights the importance of inter-annual variability on climate change induced range shifts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2280.txt: they are figure 1a, and figure 3 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2281.txt: they are e | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2281.txt: authors are carefully treating the advantage of the normalisation method focused on both performance and cost | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2282.txt: they are the best-understood organism in the aquatic environment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2282.txt: authors are refering to, the methodology is that of delta delta ct | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2282.txt: they are explained in the material and methods section, i cannot be sure that they follow the miqe guidelines | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2282.txt: they are not appropriately described in the figure legends or the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2282.txt: they are means, why are there no error bars | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2282.txt: authors are basing these fold differences on no effects at 10 um a-hgs and | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2282.txt: they are not reporting the hsp results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2283.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2284.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2285.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2286.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2287.txt: they are in terms of the hypothesis tested | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2287.txt: they are usually lower during the night than during the day | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2288.txt: they are not without precedent elsewhere | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2288.txt: they are likely to be | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2288.txt: they are using camera traps, and what they want to get out of activity levels | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2288.txt: they are too brief | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2288.txt: they are not too impacted by cats | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2289.txt: they are responsible for the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/229.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2290.txt: they are filled with numerous small errors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2290.txt: they are not able to move and geographical regions which enable them | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2290.txt: authors are examining this trait across genotypes or species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2290.txt: authors are from there, but the readers always appreciate a more general view | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2291.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2292.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2293.txt: they are grown across europe, but all the other landscape variables that go alongside growing such crops need to be considered before a good idea of how bees will forage between the two can be predicted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2294.txt: authors are encourage rather to focus on determining what minimum imaging protocol will suffice to a | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2295.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2296.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2297.txt: authors are to be commended for this as these are not easy experiments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2298.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2299.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/23.txt: they are interested in, a very effective and still somewhat unusual approach | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/23.txt: they are referred to as a phylogenetic profile | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/23.txt: they are mostly composed of elements that are described as rare overall | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/23.txt: authors are enriching the microcosm atmosphere | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/230.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2300.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2301.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2302.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2303.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2304.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2305.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2306.txt: they are, can only support a hypothesis, but they can never prove | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2306.txt: authors are encouraged to make reversions and answer these comments one point by one point | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2307.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2308.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2309.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/231.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2310.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2311.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2312.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2313.txt: they are included in the figures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2314.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2315.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2316.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2317.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2318.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2319.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/232.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2320.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2321.txt: they are mapped on the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2321.txt: they are too dark to be informative - even if they were labelled | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2321.txt: they are separate as in ziphiidae | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2322.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2323.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2324.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2325.txt: they are not discussed then they should be presented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2326.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2327.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2328.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2329.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/233.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2330.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2331.txt: they are valid | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2331.txt: they are for purposes of engineering development | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2332.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2333.txt: they are hard to see when reduced in size in the peer review pdf document, but look ok as their own pdfs | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2333.txt: they are not discussed anywhere in the manuscript, and they do not seem to alter in any way previous veronica topologies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2333.txt: they are useful to the authors for improving the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2333.txt: authors are asking general questions about | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2333.txt: they are significantly different from 0 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2334.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2335.txt: authors are attempting to make their research appear more novel than it actually is | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2336.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2337.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2338.txt: they are with unequal sizes and unaligned | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2339.txt: author is still not making this clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2339.txt: they are also mentioned in results section | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2339.txt: they are from the same specie, but might be from different experiments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2339.txt: author is trying to respond to concerns of the reviewers, these details also need to appear in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2339.txt: author is referring to in the supplementary table | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/234.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2340.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2341.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2342.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2343.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2344.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2345.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2346.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2347.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2348.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2349.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/235.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2350.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2351.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2352.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2353.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2354.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2355.txt: they are somewhat pixelated and blurry | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2356.txt: they are here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2357.txt: they are experienced divers but for a study which take about 5 years, it would be good have more information | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2357.txt: they are experienced divers but for a study which take about 5 years, it would be good have more information | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2357.txt: they are not used later in the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2358.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2359.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/236.txt: they are made | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2360.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2361.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2362.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2363.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2364.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2365.txt: they are well organized, i suggest inside the nutrients section a subsection informing about the nutrients measured in the organisms, in order to clarify how are the conditions, otherwise is confusing to know which nutrients belong to the soil and which nutrients to the organisms, i find interesting the pca, but, i suggest also to add the diagram of the variables, in order to see how are the variables over the axis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2366.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2367.txt: they are related | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2367.txt: they are not involved in methane degradation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2368.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2369.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/237.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2370.txt: they are allowed to vary according to a distribution, having a mean and variance set by parameters in the literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2371.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2372.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2373.txt: they are related to other differences, such as age, parenting, career, etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2374.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2375.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2376.txt: authors are trying to answer an important question in built environment microbiology, and they present some compelling findings, the experimental design of this study limits the scope and impact of those findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2376.txt: authors are wary of rarifying their dataset to an even level because so many sequences would be dropped in the process | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2376.txt: authors are describing are not adequately reported | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2377.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2378.txt: they are not significantly beyond previous findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2379.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/238.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2380.txt: they are no consistent with alternative models furthermore, its hard to judge the validity of the model presentation part, as it is not cleear how behavioral data were analysed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2381.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2382.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2383.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2384.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2385.txt: they are difficult to understand | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2386.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2387.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2388.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2389.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/239.txt: they are robust and therefore a good case to be used to test the new software | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2390.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2391.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2392.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2393.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2394.txt: they are intended fully constructively, and i hope you will take them in this spirit, even though they require a little more work from you and your co-authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2394.txt: they are not discrete data type so how can this be modelled with a discrete distribution | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2394.txt: authors are fitting their models, then why are the data presented with what looks like a linear fit in all of the figures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2395.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2396.txt: authors are appropriate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2396.txt: they are listed in 18s phylogenetic tree | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2396.txt: they are apparently the most interesting for further investigations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2397.txt: authors are attempting to convey in introduction and background is also not clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2397.txt: authors are trying to state in the final sentence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2398.txt: they are difficult to visualize as they are now, in a grey scale | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2398.txt: they are predicated on assuming that | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2398.txt: they are using in maxent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2398.txt: authors are using, true-random samples are unlikely, although they document indistinguishable probability of detection | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2398.txt: authors are using aucs as a method to evaluate models | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2398.txt: authors are capable of rewriting doing the following | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2399.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/24.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/240.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2400.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2401.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2402.txt: they are tightly linked | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2403.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2404.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2405.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2406.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2407.txt: they are not neutral here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2407.txt: they are not neutral here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2407.txt: authors are referring to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2408.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2409.txt: they are very poorly presented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2409.txt: they are attracted to those males, but because they just associate those males with food | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/241.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2410.txt: they are the best for determining recent geneflow | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2411.txt: they are used to support the author | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2412.txt: authors are encouraged to include more information about the host animals with respect to relevant ecology and biology | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2412.txt: they are using for statistical analyses and are presenting and discussing in the results and discussion section | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2412.txt: authors are likely including the bacteria-associated with or in the diet in addition to what was part of the actual fish | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2413.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2414.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2415.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2416.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2417.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2418.txt: they are split on whether or not your paper meets the criteria for acceptance at peerj | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2418.txt: authors are willing to introduce a significant biological question into the ms and address it, i encourage them to resubmit the ms to peerj | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2419.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/242.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2420.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2421.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2422.txt: authors are not testing at all | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2422.txt: authors are actually going to test hypotheses related to these statements but it is not the case | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2422.txt: authors are trying to answer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2422.txt: they are analyzing data for the bird community as a whole | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2422.txt: authors are analyzing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2422.txt: authors are stating is true | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2422.txt: authors are interested in fragmentation they should control for effects of amount of forest surrounding these fragments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2423.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2424.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2425.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2426.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2427.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2428.txt: authors are described including its source | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2429.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/243.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2430.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2431.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2432.txt: they are found in conventionally produced food | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2433.txt: they are well described | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2434.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2435.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2436.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2437.txt: they are appropriate at the sentence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2438.txt: they are shown | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2438.txt: they are not addressed in discussion, so their assessment is not justified at all | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2439.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/244.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2440.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2441.txt: they are not enough linked to original research question | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2442.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2443.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2444.txt: authors are valid | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2445.txt: they are mentioned in the manuscript and the functions of these markers should be well explained to aid in the data interpretation of readers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2445.txt: authors are encouraged to provide explanations for this discrepancy | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2446.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2447.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2448.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2449.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/245.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2450.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2451.txt: they are looking at dc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2452.txt: they are cited in text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2453.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2454.txt: authors are suggested to add this discussion and cite these references to attract more readers and broaden the audience | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2455.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2456.txt: they are complementary | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2456.txt: they are competitors and exclude one another from that area | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2456.txt: they are a forest species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2456.txt: they are applying two sdms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2457.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2458.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2459.txt: they are uncorrelated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2459.txt: authors are required to address all of these issues in the revision | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/246.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2460.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2461.txt: they are using to approach its question, is the overexpression of uas-transgenes or knocking down of the proteins of interest with uas-rnais with the bipartite system gal4-uas | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2461.txt: they are observing between the activities of these proteins, is due to a similar knocking down effect of each protein | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2461.txt: they are presented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2461.txt: they are using to approach its question, is the overexpression of uas-transgenes or knocking down of the proteins of interest with uas-rnais with the bipartite system gal4-uas | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2461.txt: they are observing between the activities of these proteins, is due to a similar knocking down effect of each protein | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2461.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2462.txt: they are encouraged to dig deeper into the relevant literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2462.txt: they are privately owned, or | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2463.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2464.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2465.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2466.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2467.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2468.txt: they are happy with the progress you have made but in their opinion there are still major revisions required before the paper can be accepted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2468.txt: they are also highly potential | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2468.txt: they are correct then the method used has some deficiency or artefact | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2469.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/247.txt: they are all that can be taken care of with some further literature review and adjustments to the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2470.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2471.txt: authors are fine to my opinion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2472.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2473.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2474.txt: they are raised in the introduction | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2474.txt: they are ignorant that it is a requirement of a systematic review in peerj is unfortunate, but says less about a failure in my submission that their own reviewing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2475.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2476.txt: they are satisfied and have no further critiques | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2477.txt: authors are presenting an automated tool that predicts streptococcus pneunomiae serotypes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2478.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2479.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/248.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2480.txt: they are most focused on at the beginning of the text and then wander through and need to focus more on this aspect | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2481.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2482.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2483.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2484.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2485.txt: they are housed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2485.txt: they are housed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2485.txt: they are very clear that the physiological measure on it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2486.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2487.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2488.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2489.txt: they are in possession of data, if the accessions that were collected and sampled are significant morphological differences | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/249.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2490.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2491.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2492.txt: they are assembling full length 16s from shorter reads | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2493.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2494.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2495.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2496.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2497.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2498.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2499.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/25.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/250.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2500.txt: they are presented in appropriate way in the revised version of the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2501.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2502.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2503.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2504.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2505.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2506.txt: they are used in a lot of previous research to assess the variables defined in this work | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2507.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2508.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2509.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/251.txt: authors are dealing with correspond to the number of interactions observed across the total size of the upper triangular matrix | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2510.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2511.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2512.txt: they are both in broad agreement about the quality and presentation of your work | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2513.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2514.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2515.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2516.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2517.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2518.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2519.txt: they are not clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2519.txt: they are cited and have to be reported in the extended form | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/252.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2520.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2521.txt: they are annotated in the attached pdf file for the reference of the editor and the authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2521.txt: they are grey and do not show the tissues | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2522.txt: authors are evidence producers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2523.txt: they are more visible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2524.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2525.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2526.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2527.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2528.txt: authors are keen to prioritise aim | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2529.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/253.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2530.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2531.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2532.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2533.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2534.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2535.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2536.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2537.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2538.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2539.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/254.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2540.txt: they are sometimes vague, suggesting the chloroplast genome presented here will help conservation efforts in the genus gentiana | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2541.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2542.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2543.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2544.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2545.txt: they are saying they combined belowground and aboveground taxa into one regional pool | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2545.txt: they are different than the chase et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2545.txt: authors are referring to here, please clarify | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2545.txt: authors are making lots of statistical comparisons between groups | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2545.txt: they are valid, please see experimental design comments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2545.txt: they are saying they combined belowground and aboveground taxa into one regional pool | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2545.txt: authors are referring to here, please clarify | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2546.txt: authors are asked to consider the following points before the manuscript can be accepted for publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2546.txt: they are important for survival | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2547.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2548.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2549.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/255.txt: they are significantly below expected abundance | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2550.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2551.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2552.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2553.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2554.txt: authors are able to address most of the issues raised by reviewer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2555.txt: they are essential is a different question | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2556.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2557.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2558.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2559.txt: authors are not mentioned in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2559.txt: they are beginning to move | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/256.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2560.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2561.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2562.txt: they are building niches, beech cupules need to have species specialized | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2562.txt: they are not really clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2563.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2564.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2565.txt: they are not significant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2566.txt: authors are trying accomplish with this study - nor is there any aprori hypothesis clear aside from they expect there to be a mathematical relationship | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2567.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2568.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2569.txt: authors are referring to mass-specific | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/257.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2570.txt: authors are aware of the limitations of the work and have thought of alternatives | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2570.txt: they are the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2570.txt: authors are only able to convincingly complement the ptodc3k deletion mutant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2571.txt: authors are using | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2571.txt: authors are using | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2572.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2573.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2574.txt: they are interchangeable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2574.txt: authors are operating with a fundamental misunderstanding of the phytochrome system, and this is more than a bit disconcerting | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2575.txt: they are not reporting such dramatic and high profile findings as fredrickson et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2575.txt: they are more sound and appropriate than the new results reported here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2575.txt: they are subsequently used to critique | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2576.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2577.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2578.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2579.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/258.txt: authors are welcome to address these points at their own discretion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2580.txt: they are not wrong they imply more than there is | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2581.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2582.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2583.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2584.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2585.txt: authors are missing some key information and references in the field to put their research into context | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2586.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2587.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2588.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2589.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/259.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2590.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2591.txt: authors are experts in this area having published multiple papers on similar topics | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2592.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2593.txt: authors are commended for their previous revisions, however, i had difficulties tracking down the changes made by the authors to their manuscript, given that they did not provide a response letter that clearly identified the new line numbers in relation to the modifications | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2593.txt: authors are confused and elusive about their dartseq approach | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2593.txt: authors are doing in this study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2593.txt: they are merely documenting the presence of hybrid individuals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2593.txt: they are not examining in this study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2594.txt: they are both well-supported and well documented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2595.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2596.txt: they are robust to autocorrelation, ii | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2596.txt: they are therefore completely comparable across and within studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2596.txt: they are heavily influenced by distant locations, mcps will typically increase as more locations are added until a certain threshold of locations is collected | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2596.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2596.txt: they are drawn and they incorporate no information about intensity of use | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2596.txt: authors are still concerned about autocorrelation, there is a new approach to creating home ranges that incorporates autocorrelation explicitly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2597.txt: they are trying to do here and either aim it at the broad reef science and conservation community and provide a really good overview of successes and failures to date using the coral gardening approach in the caribbean with recommendations for future research | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2598.txt: they are the same, when they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2599.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/26.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/260.txt: author is describing appears to be eog, a measurement of polarization differences across the eye, which will detect vertical eye movements rather than muscle contractions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/260.txt: author is able to address my concerns and provide appropriate information to enable further evaluation of the design, data scoring, and analysis techniques, i would be pleased to review again | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2600.txt: they are indeed happy to stand by the present content of the manuscript, they should be allowed to publish it forthwith | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2600.txt: they are constrained by the size of the bud prior to its opening | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2600.txt: they are found in the similar or identical vegetation types | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2601.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2602.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2603.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2604.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2605.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2606.txt: they are more interpretable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2606.txt: they are helpful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2606.txt: authors are presenting a result about different plant genotypes, but only one genotype was used in this study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2607.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2608.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2609.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/261.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2610.txt: they are offering | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2610.txt: they are overlooking as well | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2610.txt: they are aware that the behavioral model is not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2611.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2612.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2613.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2614.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2615.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2616.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2617.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2618.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2619.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/262.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2620.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2621.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2622.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2623.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2624.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2625.txt: author is the first group tried this method on soft coral, it is better to explain the result with caution | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2625.txt: they are not under stress | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2626.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2627.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2628.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2629.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/263.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2630.txt: authors are using to espouse statistical significance, particularly if using criteria that differ from the mainstream | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2630.txt: authors are presenting the results of the best-fit model, and then directing readers to the model averaged results presented in tables 1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2631.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2632.txt: they are intact, then this would be expected | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2632.txt: they are still completely unmyelinated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2633.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2634.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2635.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2636.txt: they are not presented within an organized framework | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2636.txt: they are meant to address | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2636.txt: they are absent, here the authors may just mention that these climate data were not generated locally | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2637.txt: they are from the d | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2638.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2639.txt: authors are to be congratulated on an excellent revision of the original manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2639.txt: authors are all sound | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/264.txt: they are, in many respects, far more preliminary than the paper suggests | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/264.txt: they are sadly missing here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/264.txt: author is a well-established member of the symbiosis field and he always like everyone else in the field saw ank repeats as a hallmark of host-symbiont interactions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/264.txt: they are clearly identified as speculations by the authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2640.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2641.txt: they are commonly found in the area | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2642.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2643.txt: authors are correct in identifying it as a potential factor in l102-104, but it does not enter into the analysis as an independent factor despite the fact that the results and a previous paper in press show that the established community varies by nutrient and herbivore treatment, and the hypothesis of the present manuscript that propagule supply to tiles is probably affected by the established macroalgal community nearby | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2643.txt: they are put side by side, 5 tubes across the plot would be 75 cm of coverage | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2644.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2645.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2646.txt: they are of major importance | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2647.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2648.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2649.txt: they are out of line with the otherwise careful presentation and do require a more solid justification than is presently given | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/265.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2650.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2651.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2652.txt: they are taken into account, so please make amendments when you are ready | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2652.txt: they are the result of repetitive 0d tests across a field of interest | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2652.txt: they are borrowed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2652.txt: they are worth reemphasizing here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2652.txt: they are somehow acknowledged in the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2653.txt: they are only shown in the supplementary material, it is important to minimally discuss them on the main text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2653.txt: authors are using a reversible jump mcmc as developed by huelsenbeck et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2654.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2655.txt: they are similar or differ from one another | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2656.txt: they are addressed with appropriate methodology | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2656.txt: they are completely removed from the entire dataset | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2656.txt: authors are admirably open about this issue and do include information in a supplementary table about what was applied to each field and when, and they devote a paragraph in the discussion to this issue, but i didn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2656.txt: they are effectively point measurements | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2657.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2658.txt: they are essentially testing the same thing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2658.txt: they are currently written with respect to how non-patterened species are considered in this study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2658.txt: they are purposefully relaying some kind of information to predators | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2659.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/266.txt: they are generally known as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2660.txt: authors are also to be commended for their refreshing straightforwardness regarding the limitations of the study and their appropriately narrow conclusions from the microbiome data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2660.txt: they are also chewed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2660.txt: they are listed as pre-masticated foods in table 1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2661.txt: authors are modest about the possibilities this experiments are offering | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2661.txt: they are using cite this review as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2662.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2663.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2664.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2665.txt: they are affected by climate change, it is often overlooked that fundamental aspects of the biology of this taxon remain poorly studied | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2665.txt: they are in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2666.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2667.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2668.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2669.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/267.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2670.txt: they are not considered in the present study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2671.txt: authors are suggested to check them carefully | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2671.txt: authors are welcome discuss or speculate plausible mechanisms underlying h2o2 can affect rls in more detail | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2672.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2673.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2674.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2675.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2676.txt: authors are aware, there are a number of other information sources that do not neatly fit into a graph-based framework | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2677.txt: they are meant to promote | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2677.txt: they are interested in determining a framework for assessing the effectiveness of aes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2677.txt: they are lacking in technical quality and appear too vague in many parts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2678.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2679.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/268.txt: they are mentioned in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2680.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2681.txt: authors are acceptable and were addressed appropriately | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2682.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2683.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2684.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2685.txt: authors are not sound i my view | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2686.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2687.txt: authors are not unreasonable, but, in my opinion, they need to be more thoroughly supported by additional data, as alternative explanations for the observations can not be ruled out | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2688.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2689.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/269.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2690.txt: they are all ok | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2690.txt: they are under the figure and on the same page | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2690.txt: they are downloadable from ncbi, for ongoing studies that have sequenced data not yet submitted to genbank, it would be nice to have opportunity to input a fastq file rather than have to convert to fasta format | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2691.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2692.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2693.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2694.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2695.txt: they are supported by well-conducted experiments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2695.txt: they are keratinocytes fully differentiated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2695.txt: authors are recommended to use the more updated ipsc generation technique for generation of exogenous dna integration-fee ipsc, which will be more safe and efficient for further study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2695.txt: authors are recommended to use the more updated ipsc generation technique for generation of exogenous dna integration-fee ipsc, which will be more safe and efficient for further study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2696.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2697.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2698.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2699.txt: they are probably related to the evolution of the species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/27.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/270.txt: they are being used to inflate their estimates, why this is even necessary | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2700.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2701.txt: they are showing during the discussion of the different items | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2702.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2703.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2704.txt: they are based on biogeographic arguments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2705.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2706.txt: they are, and what they mean, etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2707.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2708.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2709.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/271.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2710.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2711.txt: they are not previously identified or shown in fig 1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2712.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2713.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2714.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2715.txt: they are both clear in recommending publication in peerj | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2716.txt: they are correlated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2717.txt: authors are on much firmer ground in asserting that it is more difficult to sterilize biofilms than bacteria in planktonic growth, and that biofilms contain a mixture of | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2718.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2719.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/272.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2720.txt: they are omitted from figure 2 on purpose, this need to be explained in the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2721.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2722.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2723.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2724.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2725.txt: authors are saying that the presence of contaminating cells is unlikely, but they then argue against nuclear stains by stating that it is | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2726.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2727.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2728.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2729.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/273.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2730.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2731.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2732.txt: they are collected | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2733.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2734.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2735.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2736.txt: they are present in figure 4 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2737.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2738.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2739.txt: authors are encouraged to revise the following aspects to improve their manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2739.txt: authors are encouraged to change it into | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2739.txt: authors are encouraged to provide other possible mechanisms in their discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/274.txt: they are uploaded with the final version | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/274.txt: authors are clear that their goals are not to address the issues that the latter approach could allow them to investigate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/274.txt: they are similar in reef structural complexity, coral cover, algal cover as the data you cite demonstrate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/274.txt: they are divided from re and rw and dashed lines around them is not necessary | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/274.txt: they are not results from this study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2740.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2741.txt: authors are found below | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2742.txt: they are within sentences instead of being at the beginning of each sentence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2743.txt: authors are trying to show | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2743.txt: authors are exploring | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2744.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2745.txt: they are moved to the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2746.txt: authors are on fertile ground in that respect | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2746.txt: they are considering | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2746.txt: authors are trying to focus on whether eurasian jays will copy the choices of others, but under the current descriptions provided, i see no reason to think that there is a difference between social and less social species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2746.txt: they are studying | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2747.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2748.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2749.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/275.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2750.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2751.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2752.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2753.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2754.txt: authors are suggested to add more discussions on the beneficial effects of bio-tofu in human health | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2755.txt: they are indicated below | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2756.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2757.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2758.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2759.txt: they are falling into this error and undermining their findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2759.txt: authors are testing the species status of u | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/276.txt: authors are describing how the tool works and not results about the improvements of the tool | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2760.txt: authors are in the process of acquiring samples the remaining bivalve superfamilies in order to complete the picture | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2761.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2762.txt: they are not classified correctly because the mean of all trials is higher than the mean on the ant trials | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2762.txt: they are not professional | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2763.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2764.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2765.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2766.txt: they are more active and abundant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2766.txt: authors are aware that when you make a tree using sequences of 1500 bp and sequences of only 300-400 bp, this gives biased results and cannot be done | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2767.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2768.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2769.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/277.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2770.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2771.txt: author is encouraged to revisit the comments of reviewer 2 and to improve the manuscript from its original version according to that reviewers comments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2772.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2773.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2774.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2775.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2776.txt: they are less toxic or that they have a lower ld50, which actually | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2776.txt: they are diluted by analyzing season-long mean effects | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2777.txt: authors are saying that the most abundant family | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2778.txt: they are host-range expansions followed by host-race formation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2779.txt: authors are simplifying things too much | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2779.txt: they are not considered to be so | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2779.txt: they are oligolectic species, but in general visit fewer flowers than their females | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/278.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2780.txt: they are different among the areas | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2781.txt: author is trying to focus the specific way of identification prevailing there in terms of bamboo or herbal product authentication, should be presented with specific reference accordingly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2782.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2783.txt: they are sufficient to detect main and interaction effects | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2784.txt: authors are correct that basic life history data is missing for many imperiled species, and collecting those data are vital to conservation efforts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2784.txt: they are important | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2784.txt: they are at the bottom of a stream | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2784.txt: they are supposed to be the output from a glmm with season, sex, site, and individual as the factors, but that should produce a single p value for each of those factors, so why is there a separate p value for each site | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2785.txt: authors are gathering evidence for aspects that are not their study issue | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2785.txt: they are prone to important selection bias | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2786.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2787.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2788.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2789.txt: they are all well signaled in the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2789.txt: they are visible in the figure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2789.txt: they are facilitated by the locally common flowerpiercers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/279.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2790.txt: authors are recommended to emphasize the meanings of applying the pss to sports context, regardless of some instruments used in previous studies to measure stress | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2790.txt: authors are suggested to add some research regarding the measurement of athletes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2790.txt: authors are suggested to not replicate the description same with the tables and to give solid descriptions to inform the readers about the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2791.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2792.txt: they are low taken into account the number of factors, interactions and the inclusion of a random factor | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2793.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2794.txt: they are author opinions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2795.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2796.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2797.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2798.txt: authors are sufficient and enough to replicate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2798.txt: they are blinded to the experimental conditions in the behavioral experiments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2798.txt: authors are requested to do some additional experiment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2799.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/28.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/280.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2800.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2801.txt: they are referring to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2801.txt: they are evaluating shape without visible sutures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2802.txt: authors are advised to seek professional help to improve the quality of the english | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2803.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2804.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2805.txt: author is encouraging | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2805.txt: author is saying that a geometry scan of the dioxygen attack on several of the triplet surfaces leads to an excited state with the geometry of the intermediate and the electronics of the reactant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2805.txt: they are refereed to in the text and are of the up most important when investigating this spin-forbidden reaction mechanism | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2806.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2807.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2808.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2809.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/281.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2810.txt: they are not going to show the true data, i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2811.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2812.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2813.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2814.txt: they are listed in methods | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2815.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2816.txt: they are somewhat similar to the previous publication of these data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2817.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2818.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2819.txt: authors are able to address a number of issues mostly related to clarity and presentation of the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/282.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2820.txt: author is trying to say | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2821.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2822.txt: they are describing the entire sepal or just the margin | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2823.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2824.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2825.txt: they are not relevant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2825.txt: they are university students | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2826.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2827.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2828.txt: they are naturally selected | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2829.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/283.txt: authors are commended for the very thorough revision performed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/283.txt: authors are testing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2830.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2831.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2832.txt: authors are careful about the conclusions they draw and do not over-interpret their data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2832.txt: they are all chrysophytes, but many represent different classes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2833.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2834.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2835.txt: authors are the world experts on flora of arctic canada | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2836.txt: they are needed for downstream analysis, on the condition that the original folder structure of rhea is kept unchanged | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2836.txt: they are compliant with rhea | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2837.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2838.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2839.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/284.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2840.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2841.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2842.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2843.txt: authors are aware of the limited power that a targeted gene candidate approach has and hence formulate conclusions with appropriate caution | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2843.txt: they are being used here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2844.txt: they are the first time these abbreviations are used | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2844.txt: they are qualitative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2844.txt: authors are relating 2 independent variables | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2844.txt: they are not quantitative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2844.txt: they are entirely made up of abbreviated sequence ids with no indication of what they mean | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2844.txt: they are referred to as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2844.txt: authors are only connecting viruses with hosts based on crispr-based and nucleotide-based analyses and cannot state anything about the level of mortality from this data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2844.txt: authors are describing in each section | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2844.txt: they are presenting a new crispr de novo detection pipeline which is publicly available through github | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2844.txt: authors are examining microbial metagenomes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2845.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2846.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2847.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2848.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2849.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/285.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2850.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2851.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2852.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2853.txt: they are, and can stand on their own | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2854.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2855.txt: they are all less than 1 year | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2856.txt: they are presented similarly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2857.txt: they are unrelated, but it is very limiting in terms of age, size, maturity, etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2857.txt: they are definitively not passive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2858.txt: authors are encouraged to discuss these possibilities as limitations of the current study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2858.txt: they are relative simple now | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2858.txt: authors are encouraged to include other possible mechanisms in their discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2859.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/286.txt: they are referring to a | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/286.txt: they are moved | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/286.txt: they are processed in the nest, and where they are ultimately deposited | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/286.txt: they are not reported well and need clarification | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2860.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2861.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2862.txt: authors are suggesting a better understanding of which stimulus properties influence eft performance, and how such stimulus property manipulation might relate to neural mechanisms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2862.txt: authors are quite correct, in my opinion, when they say that few researchers have tried to determine what stimulus factors lead to hidden or embedded figures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2863.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2864.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2865.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2866.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2867.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2868.txt: authors are more interested in state measures than | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2868.txt: authors are more satisfied with as a potential social index of wellbeing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2869.txt: they are currently seemed to be a little out of space | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2869.txt: authors are merely stating comparisons with previous studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/287.txt: they are referred to as deprived vs affluent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2870.txt: authors are primarily referring to small, likely genetically encoded, metabolites rather than the more general fraction of dom that is usually referred to as lmw dom | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2871.txt: they are written as, for examples | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2871.txt: they are not related to what is written in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2871.txt: they are shown neither in figure 3 nor in figure 4 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2871.txt: authors are not specifying years it is confusing to know if they are referring to the bleaching event in 2010 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2871.txt: they are re-analyzed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2871.txt: they are currently presented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2872.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2873.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2874.txt: they are found at low densities in the lake | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2875.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2876.txt: they are potential indicater of stress | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2877.txt: they are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, but are thought to be underreported | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2877.txt: they are much larger in size | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2877.txt: they are different, then you have stats to back up your claim and make that comparison stronger, and if not, then you might want to rephrase your statements | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2878.txt: authors are trying to make | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2878.txt: authors are addressing a very interesting aspect of ciliate cell biology, with potentially broad implications for the evoution of autophagic mechanisms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2878.txt: they are relying solely on rather limited informatics-based approaches, they need to show the complete data to demonstrate the validity of their conclusions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2879.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/288.txt: they are all positive about your work, but three of the four reviewers have also made serious comments about the experimental design and the analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/288.txt: they are independent replicates of the different treatments, in table 1, n | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2880.txt: authors are not trying to give a comprehensive overview of all the important studies on parsing heterogeneity, but it is not clear why the authors have been selective in choosing some studies to cite, but not others | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2880.txt: authors are citing most of the main primary important studies in the literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2881.txt: authors are only using inhibitors designed for human targets here as proof-of-concept but if they seen an effect there, it is reasonable to assume that there may also be effects in the other direction, once an inhibitor is optimized for lepidopterans | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2882.txt: they are helpful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2883.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2884.txt: they are made by the same person to avoid biases | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2885.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2886.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2887.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2888.txt: they are lowly expressed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2888.txt: authors are missing a number of papers in the scrna-seq analysis domain of relevance to their method, including - http | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2888.txt: they are worth noting in the introduction and statements such as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2888.txt: they are short on time | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2889.txt: authors are well stated, linked to original research question | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/289.txt: they are not redundant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/289.txt: authors are not going to use the panas | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/289.txt: they are currently experiencing various positive and negative feelings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2890.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2891.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2892.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2893.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2894.txt: they are not presented with enough detail, the manuscript was not prepared with accuracy and have many flaws | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2895.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2896.txt: authors are reporting in this manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2896.txt: authors are referring to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2896.txt: they are not showing any gene expression nor enzyme production | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2897.txt: they are often not normally distributed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2897.txt: authors are transparent about the fact that there were quite long delays in making the text disappear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2897.txt: authors are describing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2898.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2899.txt: they are interacting with real humans or computers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2899.txt: they are not for the arrow one | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/29.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/290.txt: authors are not willing to test that, please explain in the manuscript why this evaluation would not be necessary | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2900.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2901.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2902.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2903.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2904.txt: they are referring to should be total variance, not environmental variance | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2904.txt: they are on associations between associations, or associations between an association and time | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2905.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2906.txt: authors are correct, it would be useful for those less familiar to the field to be pointed in the right direction | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2907.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2908.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2909.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/291.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2910.txt: they are in cran | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2910.txt: they are talking about | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2910.txt: authors are assessing vertical resistance | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2910.txt: they are expected to be primed as opposed to plants grown under green house conditions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2910.txt: authors are using a strain of alternaria solani from germany | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2910.txt: they are exposed to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2911.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2912.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2913.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2914.txt: they are a source of noise that could have simply been eliminated from the discussion without affecting the results in any way | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2914.txt: authors are not familiar with the literature questioning the use of mass data and its variation in turtles due to gravidity, gut contents, health, etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2914.txt: authors are referencing non-independence of mass and cl within closely related species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2914.txt: they are not, of course | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2914.txt: authors are compelled the addition of this study would be fantastic, but i leave this up to their discretion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2915.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2916.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2917.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2918.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2919.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/292.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2920.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2921.txt: they are experimentally sound | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2922.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2923.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2924.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2925.txt: authors are responsible for making materials, code, data and associated protocols available to readers without delay | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2925.txt: authors are basing their conclusions on, but i am confused on how it was interpreted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2925.txt: authors are interpreting the results to suggest that cell death is pathology of bd and not an amphibian immune response | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2925.txt: they are different, and we would be interested in the variations over time by species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2925.txt: authors are analyzing the same data twice using different statistical methods | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2926.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2927.txt: they are also difficult to read, and use of multiple decimal places could be fixed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2928.txt: they are dealing with new alleles | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2929.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/293.txt: they are the emphasis in this study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/293.txt: they are very different analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2930.txt: they are actually two species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2930.txt: they are different species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2931.txt: authors are reporting in main text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2932.txt: they are all positive about this paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2933.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2934.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2935.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2936.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2937.txt: authors are encouraged to analyze infection rate among groups stratified by the number of symptoms such as no, one, two and more than two symptoms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2938.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2939.txt: they are all simple | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2939.txt: they are correct to distinguish the parametric | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/294.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2940.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2941.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2942.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2943.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2944.txt: authors are limited by not being able to witness interactions between fish, but some thought should be devoted to this complexity since they have extensive data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2945.txt: they are very minor populations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2945.txt: they are more easily recognized by automated tools | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2945.txt: authors are trying but unable to reconcile their data, evident from the 10-page discussion and statements such as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2946.txt: authors are suggesting which is different | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2946.txt: authors are to be commended for trying to bring some methodological rigor to the question of how eye movements vary with video sequences as opposed to static images | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2947.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2948.txt: they are well argued | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2949.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/295.txt: they are in some, but not all instances here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/295.txt: they are a noun e | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/295.txt: authors are also generally not present in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2950.txt: authors are the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2950.txt: they are not reported | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2951.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2952.txt: they are discussed in the light of all factors influencing them rather than just one at once | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2953.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2954.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2955.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2956.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2957.txt: they are referring to decreases in the physiological and energetic demands of prey or ringed seals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2957.txt: authors are suggesting here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2958.txt: authors are redundant in providing in vivo photographic images of h | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2959.txt: authors are looking at many separate phages that have evolved to infect different staphylococcal species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2959.txt: authors are characterizing a highly uneven population given the relative numbers of viruses with | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/296.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2960.txt: authors are responsible for making materials, code, raw data and associated protocols relevant to the submission available without delay | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2961.txt: they are merely disordered and will not be cleaved in mature enzyme pmsts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2962.txt: they are not expected to be reflected in experiment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2962.txt: they are using | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2963.txt: authors are encouraged to go the next useful step in future studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2964.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2965.txt: author is not willing to implement a meliaceae calibrated dating, i ask the editor to handle this ms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2965.txt: author is congratulated on a well constructed and interesting manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2966.txt: they are crustaceans | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2967.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2968.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2969.txt: they are so very different, it is surprising that you only identified 3 clades | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/297.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2970.txt: authors are in an excellent place to answer that question in kerala or elsewhere in india, since a true evaluation of severity could be carried out, with the adequate controls | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2971.txt: authors are specifically interested in testing geographical barriers to dispersal that have been reported for other species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2971.txt: authors are imposing their a priori hypothesis to the reader | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2972.txt: they are still readable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2973.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2974.txt: they are relevant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2975.txt: they are well-constructed with valuable information | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2976.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2977.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2978.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2979.txt: they are sufficiently major for the reviewers to re-review the manuscript once you have revised it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/298.txt: authors are referring to m | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2980.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2981.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2982.txt: they are interesting for people working on very similar topics only | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2983.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2984.txt: they are often discussed together | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2985.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2986.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2987.txt: authors are interested in the full latent trait, which may not be the purpose of the k6 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2988.txt: authors are using the n50 metric to show how compact the assemblies are | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2988.txt: they are well presented and argued | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2989.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/299.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2990.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2991.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2992.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2993.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2994.txt: they are saying | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2994.txt: they are trying to detect, given their effect size | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2995.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2996.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2997.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2998.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/2999.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/30.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/300.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3000.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3001.txt: authors are careful to specify that the results apply to a small sample, but do not really spell out how this sample could be different to the general population of donkeys | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3001.txt: authors are welcome to see any or all of these | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3001.txt: they are distinct from one another was not always clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3002.txt: authors are trying to say | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3003.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3004.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3005.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3006.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3007.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3008.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3009.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/301.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3010.txt: authors are listed as corresponding authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3010.txt: they are correct that not everything has to be supported by a statistical test, that would only correctly apply to qualitative descriptive statements | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3010.txt: authors are making comparisons | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3010.txt: they are best suited for spanning gaps, or any number of other possibilities | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3010.txt: they are a bit unclear in places | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3011.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3012.txt: authors are implying | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3013.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3014.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3015.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3016.txt: they are lacustrine or riverine | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3016.txt: they are still embargoed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3017.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3018.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3019.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/302.txt: they are migrating | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/302.txt: they are assimilating by | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/302.txt: they are integrating | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3020.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3021.txt: authors are suggesting the use of the 4 ceis alone will have utility in identifying patients at risk of developing ra associated ild | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3022.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3023.txt: they are touching different objects, but in reality they are always touching the same one | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3023.txt: they are trying to answer line 249 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3024.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3025.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3025.txt: they are numerated by the authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3025.txt: they are 100km apart | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3026.txt: they are difficult to understand | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3027.txt: they are very confusing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3028.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3029.txt: they are influenced by factors such as root density, litter and vegetation cover | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3029.txt: authors are required to revise the manuscript thoroughly and clarify the methods | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/303.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3030.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3031.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3032.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3033.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3034.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3035.txt: they are talking about checkm results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3035.txt: they are saying the word redundancy | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3035.txt: they are written in alphabetic order | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3036.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3037.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3038.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3039.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/304.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3040.txt: they are only valid in the context in which the work was undertaken | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3041.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3042.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3043.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3044.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3045.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3046.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3047.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3048.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3049.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/305.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3050.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3051.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3052.txt: they are attached below | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3052.txt: they are interested in the local topology and assess this using graphlets | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3053.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3054.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3055.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3056.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3057.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3058.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3059.txt: they are not found in tropical waters | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/306.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3060.txt: authors are honest and transparent about the problems, but if there are issues in identification of males and females to their correct species, these need to be removed from the analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3061.txt: authors are right, however, there are several reports about the important role of conserved motifs in protein function | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3062.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3063.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3064.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3065.txt: they are proposing new lectotype designations, they will need to confirm they have satisfied any iczn requirements for doing so and address the reviewers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3065.txt: authors are knowledgeable of the subject matter | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3066.txt: they are many, i do not believe they will be difficult to fix | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3066.txt: they are important at the start of the discussion would be useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3067.txt: authors are not testing for differences between protected areas and harvested areas | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3067.txt: authors are trying to say that urchins in protected areas are different than urchins in harvested areas | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3068.txt: they are near 0 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3069.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/307.txt: they are relative to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/307.txt: they are correct relative to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/307.txt: they are the same, then the bars do not seem to match the tabular data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3070.txt: they are very different in range | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3070.txt: they are so similar in style | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3071.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3072.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3073.txt: they are controlled appropriately | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3074.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3075.txt: they are most interested in, and that the rest of the article will focus on | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3075.txt: they are studying are a subset of the genus canis and do not represent the entire genus | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3075.txt: they are simply focused on domesticated dogs, their study methods are well presented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3075.txt: authors are really prudent stating conclusions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3076.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3077.txt: they are not equivalent, mixing them will mislead analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3077.txt: they are still more poorly suited to dating using an arbitrary evolutionary rate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3077.txt: they are trying to examine one largely arboreal, generally larger lineage with very few instances of terrestriality, and one largely terrestrial lineage with fewer instances of arboreality, but more importantly several instances of miniaturization | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3077.txt: authors are trying to derive overarching patterns across a relatively balanced | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3077.txt: authors are free to call these species extremely miniaturised if they please | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3078.txt: authors are not supported by the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3079.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/308.txt: they are based on pre-disturbance cover | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/308.txt: they are invalid, but some discussion of how short-term trajectories of coral decline and recovery might relate to longer-term trajectories might be useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/308.txt: authors are careful not to over-interpret their results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3080.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3081.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3082.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3083.txt: authors are trying to impart with this sentence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3083.txt: they are chaotic and don | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3084.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3085.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3086.txt: they are referring to in order to avoid confusion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3086.txt: they are overexpressing bace1, they assume that mcherry-sappa levels would be negligible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3087.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3088.txt: they are on the figure itself already | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3089.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/309.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3090.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3091.txt: they are generally well labelled and described | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3091.txt: they are not as widely use as they deserve | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3091.txt: they are defined | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3091.txt: they are widely used in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3092.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3093.txt: they are very important to include in the review and support | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3094.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3095.txt: authors are presenting a methodology that is mixing peptide torsion angle and sequence alignment information to predict single and multi-label enzymatic function | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3095.txt: authors are comparing results with previous ones | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3095.txt: authors are expecting for the deep learning methods by including new information | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3095.txt: authors are not using peptide graphs descriptors as invariant codification | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3096.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3097.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3098.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3099.txt: author is a very well-experienced researcher, so this reflects to the overall quality of the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/31.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/310.txt: authors are right to point out that it is difficult to distinguish between demographic expansion and a selective sweep with this data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3100.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3101.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3102.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3103.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3104.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3105.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3106.txt: authors are recommended to explain how they decided to include 16 items as health symptoms, and 19 items as job demands | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3106.txt: authors are suggested to clarify the validity of the measures regarding health symptoms, job demands, and self-efficacy | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3107.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3108.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3109.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/311.txt: they are now more easy to follow | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/311.txt: authors are very clear about the limitations of the study and its scope | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3110.txt: they are unguals from different digits | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3110.txt: they are rather obscure specimens so far, but the author has done much to detail their anatomy | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3110.txt: they are assumed to be ornithomimosaurian in origin | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3111.txt: authors are to be commended for applying such a well-designed experimental approach to their research question and for the quality of their writing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3111.txt: they are to be commended for demonstrating their enthusiasm for the subject through their writing -- thank you | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3112.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3113.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3114.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3115.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3116.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3117.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3118.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3119.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: they are unfamiliar with this topical area | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: they are only two extreme positions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: they are simply the findings from a small survey administered to two classes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: authors are anthropologists, the word political ecology isn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: authors are reading these papers from different disciplines and do not fully recognize the points being raised or discussed by them or what gets presented at ecological and conservation meetings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: they are efficient predators, but they are opportunistic predators, which is technically different than depredation when not hungry | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: they are in texas, which is not representative of the country | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: they are in specific classes which likely indicates specific interests | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: authors are equating animal rights proponents with animal activists with individuals with interest in animal welfare | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: they are interested in categorizing and stick with that terminology throughout | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: authors are making are good ones but are not as well organized and expressed as they might be | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: they are usually confined to an area like a yard when they do this | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/312.txt: they are not representative of real world stakeholders involved in the debate or even a wide segment of the public | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3120.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3121.txt: they are needed or improve the ms, and send the revised ms back with an explanation of alterations, or why you disagree with suggestions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3122.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3123.txt: they are simply in parentheses separated by a space, and why category 7 is missing from the text but not the table | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3124.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3125.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3126.txt: they are not relevant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3126.txt: they are poorly referenced to in text too | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3127.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3128.txt: they are affected differently by chemical perturbation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3129.txt: authors are able to assess methodological quality only if the reporting was adequate in published reports | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/313.txt: author is appropriated cautious on its conclusions, especially given the low numbers for some of the retracted paper categories | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3130.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3131.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3132.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3133.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3134.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3135.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3136.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3137.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3138.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3139.txt: they are reasonable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/314.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3140.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3141.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3142.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3143.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3144.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3145.txt: they are hunting | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3146.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3147.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3148.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3149.txt: they are happy with the excellent job that you did | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/315.txt: authors are presenting a tool to identify instances of linear motifs in the form of regular expressions or pssms along with their interacting domains, and enhance the specificity of the prediction by including network | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/315.txt: they are looking for | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/315.txt: they are used to using smart or another database, or they can | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/315.txt: they are searching for | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3150.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3151.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3152.txt: they are presented quite generally, and the reader is left to infer their meaning | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3153.txt: they are positive or negative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3154.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3155.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3156.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3157.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3158.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3159.txt: they are populations that occur in human-disturbed habitats | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3159.txt: they are entered completely identical as the first reviewer suggested in the first review | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3159.txt: they are labelled and described well | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3159.txt: they are detailed here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3159.txt: they are characterized by a long life span | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3159.txt: they are not discussed and it is not shown how the data of the study support this implications | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/316.txt: authors are to be commended for examining nucleosidase function using rnai - the most rigorous and direct approach currently available for this kind of gene function study in schistosomes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3160.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3161.txt: they are written unconventionally e | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3162.txt: authors are proposing that these 3 isolates | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3163.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3164.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3165.txt: authors are not virologists themselves, and as someone who has worked on geminiviruses since the 1990 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3165.txt: they are classified in the kingdom fungi | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3166.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3167.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3168.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3169.txt: they are close to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3169.txt: authors are investigating the impact of selected characteristics of caves on occurrence of eight animal species, that are not troglobionts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3169.txt: they are aware that application of the method is limited, so they used only pairwise data only a fortnight apart | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/317.txt: they are known to be the relevant form during vector inoculation in the mammalian host dermis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/317.txt: authors are right to use mann-whitney test in this figure, which assumes non-normal distributions - this test is more reliable for the results presented in the figure 6 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/317.txt: authors are analyzing samples with n | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/317.txt: authors are describing in the figures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/317.txt: they are interacting for sure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3170.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3171.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3172.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3173.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3174.txt: they are still too small to read | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3175.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3176.txt: they are summarized at that taxonomic hierarchy | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3177.txt: they are recommending it publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3177.txt: authors are required to strictly adhere with the format of the journal while drafting their manuscript starting from the affiliations and afterwards | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3178.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3178.txt: they are not needed, and your use throughout the text and figure captions is inconsistent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3178.txt: they are for each species and how they might affect foraging | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3178.txt: they are in fact the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3178.txt: authors are not sufficient familiar with the relevant literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3178.txt: they are comparing here is the mean walk distance per individual for different species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3178.txt: they are longer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3178.txt: they are larger steps | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3179.txt: they are addressed, i should be able to come to a favorable decision quite quickly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3179.txt: they are only preserved at their lateral extent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/318.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3180.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3181.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3182.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3183.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3184.txt: authors are trying to simulate a real life situation i believe the effects need to be studied in a carefully controlled laboratory setting first | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3184.txt: they are variable and not related to the treatment applied | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3185.txt: they are in keeping with table 2 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3186.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3187.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3188.txt: they are extensive enough and request a softening of the conclusions that these reviews merit a major revision | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3189.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/319.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3190.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3191.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3192.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3193.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3194.txt: they are the only skinks in the neotropics | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3195.txt: they are described elsewhere line 168 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3196.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3197.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3198.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3199.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/32.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/320.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3200.txt: they are also be certain characters which could have made bolosaurids less effective | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3200.txt: author is trying to determine causation, a simple and elegant way to do this would be to model the effect of dietary regime on rates of character evolution using phylogenetic regression | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3201.txt: they are likely selected through the survival of their parents with | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3202.txt: they are very common maybe finding them in both host and tick microbiomes isn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3202.txt: they are then this is useful information | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3202.txt: they are written they are very hard to follow given all the sample and otu numbers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3202.txt: they are hard to understand especially since there is little or no association between the numbers and the taxa in the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3203.txt: authors are expected to find an alternative fetuin family protein bj49a with antihemorrhagic activity and analyze its expression profile | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3204.txt: they are larger | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3205.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3206.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3207.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3208.txt: authors are responsible for making materials, code, data and associated protocols available to readers without delay | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3208.txt: they are independent line 297 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3208.txt: they are analyzed with 2013 and 2014 publication counts and 2013 jif | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3208.txt: they are available in github, i strongly encourage authors to follow researcher best practices to preserve and make software citeable in a sustainable, identifiable and simple way | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3209.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/321.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3210.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3211.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3212.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3213.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3214.txt: they are adding samples to available genetic data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3214.txt: they are just building on one another | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3214.txt: they are of a species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3214.txt: they are able to distinguish these two regions as being distinct lineage with high bootstrap support and posterior probabilities, the relationships to other species of fukomys and their phylogeographic history is where they lack support | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3215.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3216.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3217.txt: authors are describing the current or past condition of the quarry, based on their work or the work of others | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3217.txt: they are in the current draft | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3217.txt: they are few in number, and i don | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3217.txt: they are preserved | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3218.txt: author is addressing the issue of the use of chaperones and chauffeurs by doctors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3219.txt: they are each on a separate axis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3219.txt: authors are not reporting the roc curves | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/322.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3220.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3221.txt: they are from the late 70s to the early 2000s | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3222.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3223.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3224.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3225.txt: they are high quality, easy to read, and well designed, and show all the structures mentioned in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3226.txt: they are rarely encountered and i admit that in many instances they are probably due to people trying to hard to get amplicons using the emm typing primers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3226.txt: they are legitimate emm types due to intra-strain recombination events | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3226.txt: they are only legit if in fact linked to the primer 1 sequence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3227.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3228.txt: authors are clear and report copious data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3229.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/323.txt: they are similar | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/323.txt: they are different states | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3230.txt: they are not based on the same fitted model in each replication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3231.txt: they are correct | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3232.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3233.txt: they are not separated into multiple pages when editing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3234.txt: they are analyzed from ach restaurant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3235.txt: they are in | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3235.txt: they are likely to be clones | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3236.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3237.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3238.txt: they are not representative at all | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3239.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/324.txt: they are asked to report on the adhd symptoms of a long time ago | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3240.txt: they are not coherent with this concept in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3240.txt: they are not relevant and not informative because did not show the claims purposed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3241.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3242.txt: they are currently presented i found myself at later points in the paper having to go back and just check that they are not about eyesight | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3243.txt: they are, without the need of being projected | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3243.txt: they are assigned were removed if the statistical significance of nodes within modules were assessed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3243.txt: they are in there somewhere, but i couldn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3243.txt: they are valid and great examples they are not inclusive as it might be assumed by the reader | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3243.txt: authors are trying to state that our current studies have only uncovered | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3243.txt: they are confident to assign | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3244.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3245.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3246.txt: they are generally referred to as sediment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3246.txt: they are advantageous, or that they are more advantageous than sediment communities | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3246.txt: they are found on shoots | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3247.txt: they are novel media - also the use of aim needs to be clearly defined to avoid ambiguity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3248.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3249.txt: authors are aggressively critisize previous work conducted by other research groups, in particular by durban et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/325.txt: they are not, you should transform your data prior to analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/325.txt: they are making | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/325.txt: they are often absent in small active extant genera | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/325.txt: they are based on more than sections in a single plane and include sections from different regions of whole bones | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3250.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3251.txt: they are so much more informative than bar charts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3251.txt: they are biological repeats, and n | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3251.txt: they are more resistant to drugs in their relatively inert forms such as spores and biofilms, which are also more commonly encountered in real life settings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3252.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3253.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3254.txt: authors are advised to mention that because this study is entirely in-silico, first we need to experimentally identify and characterize these bacterioicns and whether if they are true bcteriocins or not and their effectiveness | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3255.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3256.txt: they are incomplete | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3256.txt: authors are also entitled to follow any phylogenetic hypothesis that is out there, but perhaps might like to acknowledge that there are competing ideas about pterosaur phylogeny - not only andres et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3257.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3258.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3259.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/326.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3260.txt: authors are encourage to proof read the ms by a english-native speaker or any professional writer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3260.txt: they are part of the same process, they may be responding coordinately | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3260.txt: they are the most stably expressed of the ones tested, i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3260.txt: they are part of related processes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3260.txt: they are not familiar with the method | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3260.txt: authors are encouraged to indicate that the set of reference genes are intended for their use in | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3260.txt: authors are encouraged to be more precise when describing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3260.txt: authors are encourage to perform at least one of these two options | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3261.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3262.txt: they are much more satisfied | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3262.txt: authors are inconsistent in their application | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3262.txt: authors are invalid unless they take into account all the relevant literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3263.txt: author is working on a more in-depth analysis of bat petrosal anatomy | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3264.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3265.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3266.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3267.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3268.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3269.txt: they are essentially technical replicates from the same sample | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3269.txt: they are in supp | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/327.txt: authors are interested in comparing coral communities and their symbionts along a naturally occurring thermal gradient | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/327.txt: authors are not interested or in reality can not investigate the mechanism underlying community change | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/327.txt: authors are entitled to that position | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/327.txt: author is overselling the applicability and significance of the study and the other reviewer was right to bring the limits of the approach to the authors attention | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3270.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3271.txt: authors are careful with their language and the importance of the results are communicated well | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3271.txt: they are individual data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3271.txt: they are in | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3271.txt: they are pregnant, but having had a similar issue in my own publications regarding | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3272.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3273.txt: authors are looking for inflammation according to the experimental design | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3274.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3275.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3276.txt: they are first mentioned | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3276.txt: they are presented in a fragmented way rather than adequately pulling together a comprehensive overall discussion highlighting the main takeaways and relating them to previous literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3276.txt: they are first mentioned | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3277.txt: authors are expected to provide point-by-point responses to the reviewers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3277.txt: they are convinced of their present dataset | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3277.txt: they are often targeting fragments well beyond the average fragment lengths of dna preserved in ancient dental calculus | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3277.txt: they are often produced in bacterial expression systems | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3277.txt: authors are automatically reducing the ability to find any potential contamination | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3277.txt: they are based on a very slim dataset | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3278.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3279.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/328.txt: they are correlated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3280.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3281.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3282.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3283.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3284.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3285.txt: they are quite harsh regarding the illegal collected specimens and the loosing of data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3286.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3287.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3288.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3289.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/329.txt: they are confusing and one cannot conclude on the validity of the findings, which is quite worrying | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/329.txt: authors are going for here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3290.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3290.txt: they are not randomly chosen sites | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3291.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3292.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3293.txt: they are able to detect recombination products | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3293.txt: authors are able to detect recombination events | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3294.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3295.txt: authors are also suggested to add the brief context of roles of cumulus cells in oocyte meiosis and maturation in introduction or discussion part, for example, sheep | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3296.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3297.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3298.txt: authors are able to address each one of the issues raised by reviewer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3298.txt: they are running outdoors in an uncontrolled environment, whereas all the raw data collected comes from highly controlled, artifical indoor | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3298.txt: authors are of course not the only ones to have this problems, but there is an interesting field emerging that uses data from mobile sensors in the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3299.txt: they are also in substantially higher risk of being labeled | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3299.txt: they are statistical tests | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3299.txt: they are not appropriate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/33.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/330.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3300.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3301.txt: they are in accordance with the objectives and methods proposed in the research | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3302.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3303.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3304.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3305.txt: authors are correctly labeled and easy to follow up and reveals the work done | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3306.txt: they are expected to be unrelated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3307.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3308.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3309.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/331.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3310.txt: they are a little bit repetitive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3311.txt: they are far from being exhaustive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3312.txt: they are wrong | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3312.txt: they are a taphomorph of aspidella, and therefore, no necessarily a porportid | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3312.txt: they are porpitids based on their similarities to other putative porpitid fossils is all well and good, but the results are still very equivocal | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3312.txt: they are really onto something, and it is not at all clear to me how they have managed to tentatively assign it to a genus and species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3313.txt: they are well supported by their diagnostic characters | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3314.txt: they are convex polygons in a tessellation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3315.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3316.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3317.txt: they are trying to indicate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3318.txt: they are discussing hypothesis or results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3319.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/332.txt: authors are quite specific about which versions of the dependent software works with ls-bsr | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3320.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3321.txt: they are going to apply | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3321.txt: they are going to address the suitability of the tools they are applying to that end | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3322.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3323.txt: they are more easily seen as separate groups | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3324.txt: they are and how they are relevant to the key goals of the study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3324.txt: authors are correct when they state that they have access to a unique dataset | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3325.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3326.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3327.txt: author is making the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3327.txt: author is also an estimate given that we have the perfect helix approximation and the assumption of regular backbones | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3328.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3329.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/333.txt: they are happy with your revision | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3330.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3331.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3332.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3333.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3334.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3335.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3336.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3337.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3338.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3339.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/334.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3340.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3341.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3342.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3343.txt: they are using the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3344.txt: they are both above and below each bar | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3344.txt: they are clear by this stage | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3344.txt: authors are asking about the restoration of the second trophic level, and the effect of the third and this gives the work a rather novel perspective | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3344.txt: they are needed to restore the insectivore community | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3345.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3346.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3347.txt: they are preparing a separate manuscript on the biological conclusions from this dataset, and this clarifies my comments regarding the scope and recommendations made in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3347.txt: authors are using blast to assign taxonomy to edna | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3347.txt: they are significant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3348.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3349.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/335.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3350.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3351.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3352.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3353.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3354.txt: they are low | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3354.txt: they are ssu phylogenies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3354.txt: they are not monophyletic | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3355.txt: they are important and what do these data portend for reefs in the main hawai | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3356.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3357.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3358.txt: authors are able to address the points listed above i am happy to recommend the paper for publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3358.txt: they are not sterile, they are not reliably airtight, and they tear easily | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3359.txt: they are averaged for each individual, which means that negative and positive values are averaged together | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/336.txt: authors are also encouraged to cite more recent papers related to various wastewaters treated by anammox process | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3360.txt: they are changing due to the influence of the storms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3361.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3362.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3363.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3364.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3365.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3366.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3367.txt: they are developed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3368.txt: they are basing their time-averaging hypothesis on ibfs and 1,000s of specimens, not five, as suggested by dr | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3368.txt: they are indeed out of the quality required by the journal | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3368.txt: they are assigned to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3368.txt: they are also available in the annotated pdf, but i felt it may also be useful to have them written in order | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3369.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/337.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3370.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3371.txt: they are not novel to a large degree, but it is good that there is a lot of independent evidence that these genes are involved in life-history traits | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3372.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3373.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3374.txt: they are actually | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3374.txt: they are relevant, described with sufficient details, and informative enough to replicate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3375.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3376.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3377.txt: authors are interpreting the pam results as an ecosystem processes, essentially regardless of whether it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3377.txt: they are not necessary | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3377.txt: they are associated with two distinct microbial populations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3378.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3379.txt: they are predominantly observations on the patterns of infection | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/338.txt: they are not truly independent replicates | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3380.txt: they are around 114e | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3381.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3382.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3383.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3384.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3385.txt: they are likely to be genes that are markers for any proliferative state | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3386.txt: authors are commended on their literature review and references for background | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3386.txt: authors are encouraged to use caution with statements such as this, as they did not directly investigate the action of the triceps muscle on the olecranon | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3387.txt: they are the same in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3388.txt: authors are coherent to the results presented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3389.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/339.txt: they are just part of such experiments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/339.txt: they are just part of such experiments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/339.txt: they are able to accommodate different distributions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3390.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3391.txt: they are nearly perfect | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3392.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3393.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3394.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3395.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3396.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3397.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3398.txt: author is stating pairwise variation calculated by genorm in terms of single tissues, which is not shown in figure 4, thus a supplementary figure is required | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3399.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/34.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/340.txt: they are all polyphyletic according to mlst analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/340.txt: they are citing makarova et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/340.txt: authors are citing achtman et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3400.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3401.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3402.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3403.txt: authors are to be congratulated on a very useful study that provides much needed information on the rather poorly known lower cretaceous iguanodontian dinosaur ouranosaurus | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3403.txt: authors are to be congratulated on making it clear where their conclusions are based on solid evidence and where they have had to be more speculative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3403.txt: authors are not native english speakers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3403.txt: authors are complainin about the poor quality of the copy of the field map that they received from ronan allain, and describe in detail how they tried to reconstruct the original document | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3404.txt: they are descriptive and would be better placed in your methods | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3405.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3406.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3407.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3408.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3409.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/341.txt: they are patients | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3410.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3411.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3412.txt: they are significantly different | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3413.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3414.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3415.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3416.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3417.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3418.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3419.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/342.txt: they are not mentioned in the paradigm description | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3420.txt: they are intended | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3420.txt: they are reasonable, and generate plausible results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3421.txt: they are not pertinent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3421.txt: they are based only on literature datasets without any direct examination of the formulated hypothesis, with a consequential speculation bias | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3422.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3423.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3424.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3425.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3426.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3427.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3428.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3429.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/343.txt: authors are able to review, but i do not believe reviewing all negative is required | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3430.txt: they are faster, that allows them to perform better on the vst | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3431.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3432.txt: they are using rna-seq which is applied onto the transcriptomes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3432.txt: they are already described at the geo database | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3432.txt: authors are trying to say | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3432.txt: they are perhaps added later | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3433.txt: authors are using an alternate artificial system of relationships | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3433.txt: they are only considering the anatomically preserved stems and no other information from either modern or fossil material | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3433.txt: authors are free to make theirs | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3433.txt: authors are defining | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3433.txt: they are seeing patterns in the results are not apparent to the rest of us | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3433.txt: they are diagnostic | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3434.txt: they are likely being missed in palynological analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3435.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3436.txt: they are often elusive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3436.txt: they are omnivores, a variability should be expected no matter of the size i would say | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3436.txt: they are not buffered | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3437.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3438.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3439.txt: they are identical, most probably another sequence detected might be paralog of cigad2 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/344.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3440.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3441.txt: they are satisfied with your revisions and that your article is now ready for publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3441.txt: authors are commendable in this respect | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3441.txt: they are moved to a new location | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3442.txt: they are mostly frugivorous, and frugivorours birds are less sensitive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3443.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3444.txt: they are very different form the values found in 2008 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3444.txt: they are filling a particular knowledge gap | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3445.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3446.txt: they are available from the soil landscape grids of australia | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3447.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3448.txt: they are confusing at places | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3448.txt: author is advised to address following comments before the paper could be considered for publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3449.txt: they are appropriate for the various aims of the study and to address the overall aim of the research | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/345.txt: author is also still concerned with the representation of | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/345.txt: they are not sleep-deprived duo to work during weekdays | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3450.txt: they are doing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3450.txt: they are eclipsed by grammatical errors, a generally poor description and justification of experimental and methodological approaches | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3450.txt: they are important or not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3451.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3452.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3453.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3454.txt: they are transcribing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3454.txt: they are not strongly related to the biology of the lineages in the communities | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3455.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3456.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3457.txt: they are expected to be different among the low, intermediate and high risk groups that the authors have compared | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3458.txt: they are absent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3458.txt: they are important | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3458.txt: authors are arguing about biochronology | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3458.txt: authors are claiming that the presence of b | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3459.txt: authors are really interested in | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/346.txt: they are a bit congested at presented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3460.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3461.txt: authors are speculative and contradictory, the authors need to show that a | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3462.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3463.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3464.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3465.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3466.txt: they are indeed congruent, and even if so, whether there are differences in congruence across label | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3466.txt: they are made available to the scholarly community | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3466.txt: they are different | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3466.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3466.txt: they are enrolled in, but also about sex, age etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3467.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3468.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3469.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/347.txt: they are shed rather than rooted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3470.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3471.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3472.txt: they are repetitive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3472.txt: they are not found in fig | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3473.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3474.txt: they are larger and easier to see | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3475.txt: they are as blurred as the previous ones | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3476.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3477.txt: they are both quite critical, express major concerns with your ms and unambiguously advise against publication of your work as is | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3478.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3479.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/348.txt: authors are weighing-in on a topic of current controversy and importance in invasive species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3480.txt: they are interested in are represented in the data sets | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3481.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3482.txt: authors are aware of this | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3482.txt: authors are aware that two sympatric closely related species infer a rather complex evolutionary scenario | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3482.txt: authors are aware of this | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3482.txt: authors are aware that two sympatric closely related species infer a rather complex evolutionary scenario | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3483.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3484.txt: they are standard error bars, but it is not clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3485.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3486.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3487.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3488.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3489.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/349.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3490.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3491.txt: authors are careful to state that the results should be interpreted with caution, given the apparent higher vulnerability of the sample | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3492.txt: they are usually not performed on the amino acid level but on the nucleotide and codon level | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3493.txt: they are monochromatic | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3494.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3495.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3496.txt: they are sagittal sections, but the indices in figure 1 only make sense for coronal sections | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3496.txt: they are different | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3496.txt: authors are so close to a good and very important paper on this topic but seem to doggedly avoid the crucial information for sealing the deal | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3497.txt: they are not necessary in the main text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3497.txt: they are comparable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3498.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3499.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/35.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/350.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3500.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3501.txt: they are to other morphotypes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3502.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3503.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3504.txt: they are from the middle or late pleistocene or, alternatively, by putative depth of their paleoenvironment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3504.txt: they are grouped by either coral family or locality | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3504.txt: author is referring to previously documented findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3504.txt: they are consistent with modern reefs, but which modern reefs and documented by who | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3504.txt: author is alluding to the controls of coral growth and survival, or could be reef-building potential | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3504.txt: they are clearly supported by the data and | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3504.txt: they are concise and supported | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3505.txt: authors are encouraged to speculate more, as doing so is well-substantiated by existing context of the literature, and will further connect readers to the full implications of the study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3506.txt: they are meant to critique | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3506.txt: they are just held up as historical examples with limitations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3507.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3508.txt: they are trying to make sense of how the approach is different from a typical pen-and-paper test | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3508.txt: they are calculated relative too | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3509.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/351.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3510.txt: authors are speaking of | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3511.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3512.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3513.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3514.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3515.txt: they are not mentioned below | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3516.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3517.txt: they are comparable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3517.txt: they are clearly defined, and build off of extensive experience and prior work on related questioning in other systems | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3518.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3519.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/352.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3520.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3521.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3522.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3523.txt: they are intended | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3523.txt: authors are referring to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3523.txt: authors are refering to, and get rid of several of these names | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3524.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3525.txt: they are asking additionally if the particle size would influence of the sorption capacity of the zeolites | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3525.txt: they are above the nano-size scale, since larger aggregates have been formed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3525.txt: authors are aware that the findings of their acute study cannot be transferred to a chronic setup | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3526.txt: they are just minor grammatical matter, i believe that you can edit them once you receive the final proofs of your article | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3526.txt: they are crucial to define the objectives of your article | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3527.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3528.txt: authors are including measures of sep in the future | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3528.txt: they are not a clear indicator of the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3529.txt: they are assembled from population of microbes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/353.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3530.txt: they are difficult to see | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3531.txt: authors are just emphasizing that evolution works in different ways and that there are multiple factors that may lead to, or drive, the success of a species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3531.txt: authors are trying to make a case now that a small genome in this species is important for invasion success | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3531.txt: they are diploidized polyploids in many cases | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3531.txt: they are involved in trait shifts that are critical to invasive success | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3532.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3533.txt: authors are suggested to further edit their language | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3533.txt: they are listed in the reference list as 2013a and 2013b | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3533.txt: they are and seem interesting, i still question the validity and the robustness of this kind of findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3534.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3535.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3536.txt: they are looking for may reside on the mussels themselves and not be free-living in the sediment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3536.txt: they are mentioned and there is no further link to the manuscript as also no functional correlation is | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3536.txt: they are able to denitrify but for others maybe not based on their partial 16s rrna sequence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3537.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3538.txt: they are or photographs to document the differences, etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3538.txt: they are under strong local selection | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3539.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/354.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3540.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3541.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3542.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3543.txt: they are unhealthy but rather are selected for in the microenvironment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3544.txt: they are not intended as such | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3545.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3546.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3547.txt: authors are not considering the breadth of methods into that list of studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3547.txt: authors are not considering the breadth of methods into that list of studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3547.txt: they are, it is science written by our colleagues | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3547.txt: authors are implicitly agreeing with me | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3547.txt: they are already talking about this | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3548.txt: authors are very careful to not overstate any findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3549.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/355.txt: they are both correct as one is american usage while the other one is british usage, it is better to use only one of them within one article to keep consistency | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3550.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3551.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3552.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3553.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3554.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3555.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3556.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3557.txt: authors are not wrong, of course | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3558.txt: they are as strain heterogeneity can be problematic given the variability often observed between strains | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3558.txt: authors are presenting the provided genomes as a genomic resource with taxonomic and phylogenetic assignments, it would seem appropriate to try and resolve the identified incongruent placements between the 16s rrna and concatenated ribosomal protein trees | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3558.txt: authors are not privy to these community-accepted standards yet | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3558.txt: authors are going to indicate that bins have 0 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3559.txt: they are willing to do so | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3559.txt: authors are trying to find evidence for shape differences between biotypes, when in fact the data show limited differences | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3559.txt: they are highly morphologically | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3559.txt: they are used and put in the reference section | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/356.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3560.txt: authors are reporting the number of methylated cytosines from each read and then a percent methylation, however it is not clear how the percent methylation was calculated and the reporting of the number of methylated cytosines in the reads, without the inclusion of total cytosines | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3560.txt: they are for animals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3560.txt: they are specific or random | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3561.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3562.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3563.txt: they are different | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3563.txt: they are motivated, which could account for some not cooperating | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3563.txt: authors are making multiple comparisons on the same dataset, yet no bonferroni correction and associated alpha value is described | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3563.txt: authors are arguing that differences in motivation could be due to the treatment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3563.txt: they are typically not even reproductively mature yet | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3564.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3565.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3566.txt: they are being compared to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3566.txt: they are difficult to read and do not add to the narrative as data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3567.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3568.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3569.txt: authors are right when they say that the main point of the paper is the introduction of their own approach for marker selection, and i recognize now that the dataset they present is what it is, and that there is indeed no guarantee that the results will be conclusive for a given group | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3569.txt: authors are trying to sell their approach as a more powerful alternative to what is currently available, they should then choose a different focal group, one that allows the use of all the capabilities of their scripts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/357.txt: they are more willing to engage in fights | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3570.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3571.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3572.txt: authors are not strong writers - i only meant that having an outside eye can help to catch small issues | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3572.txt: authors are abundantly clear about these limitations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3572.txt: authors are more explicit and upfront about how much migration their fencing treatment can be truly expected to prevent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3573.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3574.txt: they are similar, would be fine to simply say that the effects were similar among males and females | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3575.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3576.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3577.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3578.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3579.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/358.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3580.txt: they are lower than the old experimental condition | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3580.txt: they are ok | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3581.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3582.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3583.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3584.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3585.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3586.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3587.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3588.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3589.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/359.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3590.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3591.txt: authors are referring to southern hemisphere mediterranean-climate shrublands | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3591.txt: they are initiated they proceed at a certain pace and require a certain timespan | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3591.txt: they are mentioned in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3592.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3593.txt: they are reconstructions of the adult specimens | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3594.txt: authors are not native speakers, i know that several of them are perfectly able to phrase their text into correct english | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3595.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3596.txt: authors are willing to be bold here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3596.txt: they are new record from korea | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3597.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3598.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3599.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/36.txt: they are the only thing to be done - it is paleontology - so it is necessary to do this - we cannot do experiments with fossils | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/360.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3600.txt: they are first mentioned around line 108, where the authors do reference a handful of papers with more complete explanations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3601.txt: they are produced in large amounts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3602.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3603.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3604.txt: they are important biologically | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3605.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3606.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3607.txt: they are relevant and appropriate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3608.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3609.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/361.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3610.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3611.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3612.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3613.txt: they are crucial in order to provide context to the roll-off patterns and | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3613.txt: they are not general | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3613.txt: they are produced at the foot-sand interface | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3614.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3615.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3616.txt: authors are faced with limited time and resources to be spent on the project, and i acknowledge their original intents and the novelty inherent in providing region- and state-specific incidence estimates | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3616.txt: authors are not consistent with punctuation in the in-text citations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3617.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3618.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3619.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/362.txt: authors are very experienced in this sort of work | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/362.txt: authors are using a method for cryosectioning that has been previously published | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/362.txt: authors are very experienced in this sort of work, and the experimental design refelcts this expertise | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/362.txt: they are not particularly significant in terms of the work done | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3620.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3621.txt: they are handled as different parameters | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3622.txt: they are not very clear cut | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3623.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3624.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3625.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3626.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3627.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3628.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3629.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/363.txt: they are important to the final successful publication of the study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3630.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3631.txt: authors are careful to point out that these rgs are applicable to skin lesions in the absence of drug treatment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3631.txt: authors are already using | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3631.txt: authors are sensible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3632.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3633.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3634.txt: they are almost exclusively not found in the intertidal and far more common below the reach of tidal fluctuations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3634.txt: they are from all other depths combined | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3634.txt: they are collected from tide pools and intertidal areas, it is at least defensible to conclude that intertidal residence is a realized life history strategy for all but one member of the group | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3634.txt: they are almost exclusively not found in the intertidal and far more common below the reach of tidal fluctuations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3634.txt: they are available and help them identify the step for which they were used | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3635.txt: authors are claiming because they are over-reaching on several statements | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3635.txt: authors are clear they are working with microbial diversity, but highly speculating about their results, which need to be toned down | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3635.txt: they are the same using 16s rrna gene, but phenotypes could be contrasting | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3636.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3637.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3638.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3639.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/364.txt: they are certainly not the first to point this out | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3640.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3641.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3642.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3643.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3644.txt: they are, and some of them i would not even refer to as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3645.txt: they are only for p | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3645.txt: they are written | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3646.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3647.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3648.txt: they are not used again in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3648.txt: they are in the table | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3648.txt: they are included in the total sample | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3649.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/365.txt: they are able to fund the article processing charge | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/365.txt: they are established | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3650.txt: authors are apparently following feijo and cordeiro-estrela | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3650.txt: they are not consistent in this usage | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3650.txt: they are really necessary in the first place | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3650.txt: authors are to be commended for an well-executed piece of research | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3651.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3652.txt: authors are persisting with this sort of work, i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3653.txt: they are on different continents | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3654.txt: authors are looking specifically at statistical significance, which may or may not be clinically meaningful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3655.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3656.txt: they are effective in infested trees | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3656.txt: they are of limited relevance beyond the two target species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3657.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3658.txt: authors are encouraged to advance some hypotheses to explain this observation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3659.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/366.txt: they are rigid mixes the effects of eddy currents in with motion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/366.txt: author is unwilling to redo the calculations, this paragraph will need to be rewritten to clarify that the motion summary does | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/366.txt: they are treated as combination of sources | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3660.txt: authors are working with coping strategies, i thought that one missing point is there if the emotional support receiving from the parents and social support from the family and the community, education place, and so on received during the development phase of the period when they start to use drugs | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3661.txt: authors are describing five mirid mitochondrial genomes and compare them with previously published genomes of the same or related species in order to identify the genes that may be useful in a phylogenetic framework | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3662.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3663.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3664.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3665.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3666.txt: authors are native speakers of english, and their efforts should be brought to bear on improving the text throughout | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3666.txt: authors are strongly recommend to overwork the whole manuscript in respect to author guidelines and language | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3666.txt: authors are referring to results from this study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3667.txt: they are absent and certainly needed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3668.txt: they are also informative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3669.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/367.txt: they are quite open to many interpretations, and at they very least these issues could be discussed in some more detail | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3670.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3671.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3672.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3673.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3674.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3675.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3676.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3677.txt: they are in the references section | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3677.txt: they are not independent, violating the assumptions of an anova | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3677.txt: they are also very important for mitigating ros produced by photosynthetic symbionts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3678.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3679.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/368.txt: they are inevitably descriptive and, at least for the ones i write, not the most exciting papers in my portfolio | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3680.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3681.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3682.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3683.txt: they are not widely found at depths | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3684.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3685.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3686.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3687.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3688.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3689.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/369.txt: authors are welcome to know my identity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3690.txt: authors are reporting the results of host dropping behavior, thus, the results of host escaping should be reported in the first paragraph l | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3690.txt: authors are referring to parasitoids when they say that | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3690.txt: authors are referring to when they say | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3691.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3692.txt: they are confronting a phenomenon that has been described in mussels of the genus mytilus, which also show dui | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3693.txt: they are both green and it is difficult to resolve one from the other because the datasets overlap at several time points | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3694.txt: authors are considerably improved the manuscript in terms of methodological quality, results and discussion presentation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3694.txt: authors are requested to improve the quality of their work by taking account into the specific comments described below | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3695.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3696.txt: they are focusing on | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3696.txt: they are used, were not explained in the beginning, so it was hard for a non-echinoderm scientist to understand why these were included | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3697.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3698.txt: authors are the first one to report the detailed genomic analysis of this organism | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3699.txt: they are asexual may select for lower investment in longevity and energy reserves, as there is no need to spend energy on mate search, courtship and mating | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3699.txt: they are adapted to a lower risk of superparasitism | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/37.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/370.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3700.txt: authors are comparing results, but there is no discussion regarding this topic although it is quite interesting | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3701.txt: they are similar | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3702.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3703.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3704.txt: they are material | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3705.txt: authors are comparing two different sites, it would be relatively easy to formulate a hypothesis about expected differences between the sites | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3705.txt: they are superficially described but the reader has no information with which to assess the colony measurements or the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3706.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3707.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3708.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3709.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/371.txt: authors are encouraged to provide taxonomic authors of linnean binomials when first used in the text, particularly for taxa that are the focus of the paper in question | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3710.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3711.txt: authors are likely to be interpreting this correctly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3712.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3713.txt: authors are mainly drawing negative conclusions, i think some more statistical tests should be done | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3713.txt: authors are describing how some accessions respond differently to mycorrhization under high phosphate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3714.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3715.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3716.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3717.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3718.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3719.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/372.txt: authors are reasonable deductions from the research data returns | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3720.txt: they are generally well labeled and described | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3721.txt: authors are asked to expand on this to help the reader understand the relevance of their aging technique | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3722.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3723.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3724.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3725.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3726.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3727.txt: authors are welcome to contact me directly should they have questions or anything they wish to discuss | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3728.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3729.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/373.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3730.txt: they are certainly biased by the insufficient number of reads as inferred by fig | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3731.txt: they are not suitable for this study, or how polimaps is more suitable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3732.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3733.txt: they are changing due to climate change or some phenomenon | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3734.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3735.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3736.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3737.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3738.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3739.txt: authors are encouraged to get editing help from someone with full professional proficiency in english | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/374.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3740.txt: they are now satisfied with this manuscript and compliment the authors on their revision | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3741.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3742.txt: they are showing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3742.txt: they are not so easy to interpret with confidence from the figures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3742.txt: they are not explained in the figure legend | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3743.txt: authors are referring | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3744.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3745.txt: they are moving faster than | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3745.txt: they are worthy goals to explore | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3745.txt: they are placed singly or in multiples | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3745.txt: they are reading about them | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3746.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3747.txt: they are never explicitly mentioned | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3748.txt: they are not possible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3749.txt: they are forced to conclude that they can | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3749.txt: they are not going to be able to quantify a difference that is significantly different from zero | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/375.txt: they are the same, there seems to be a typo in the text multiple times with this reference | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3750.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3751.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3752.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3753.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3754.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3755.txt: they are measuring the same underlying psychological construct | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3756.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3757.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3758.txt: authors are responsible for the english language | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3759.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/376.txt: they are simply not known at this time, and not revealed by this study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3760.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3761.txt: they are trying to tell, and organize the paragraph order and information in the paragraphs around it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3761.txt: they are using acoustic recordings to record the presence of a bird species and how the occupancy models deals with call counts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3761.txt: authors are dealing with and so it is valuable to have this introduction | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3762.txt: they are more reliable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3762.txt: they are today, how did they come to have their present distribution, and indeed, deep genetic divergences | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3763.txt: they are contradictory | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3763.txt: they are worse than yours | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3764.txt: authors are not native english speakers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3765.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3766.txt: authors are careful about using the literature to make an educated guess as to which sets of genes are likely responsible for drug resistance | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3767.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3768.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3769.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/377.txt: they are artifact but just that we are used to them | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3770.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3771.txt: they are not clear here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3771.txt: they are suitability maps produced as a result of your analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3772.txt: they are very simple | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3773.txt: they are consistent among groups | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3774.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3775.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3776.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3777.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3778.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3779.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/378.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3780.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3781.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3782.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3783.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3784.txt: they are also classified based on the characteristics on page 2 of the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3785.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3786.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3787.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3788.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3789.txt: authors are unaware of a study, in which the set of trichoplax nrs was investigated already | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3789.txt: they are descended from the same gene by speciation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/379.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3790.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3791.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3792.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3793.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3794.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3795.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3796.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3797.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3798.txt: they are trying to link methylation to expression | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3799.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/38.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/380.txt: authors are below | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3800.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3801.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3802.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3803.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3804.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3805.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3806.txt: author is getting at here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3806.txt: they are longer than anything that they were habituated to, and therefore might be likely to provoke responses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3806.txt: author is entitled to his opinion about categorization but it should be stated as such and justified, and the point above about the value of categorization in the face of noise should be explicitly recognized as well | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3806.txt: they are unlikely to hold | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3807.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3808.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3809.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/381.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3810.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3811.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3812.txt: they are just always around the limit of detection | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3812.txt: they are under the same environmental triggers, under the same evolutionary pressure, etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3813.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3814.txt: they are after, that is testing whether the form of a behaviour can be reinnovated individually | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3814.txt: they are intending to test, as it is unclear whether chimps are truly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3814.txt: they are relatively simple | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3814.txt: they are taken into account in the zls framework | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3814.txt: authors are fighting a strawman here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3814.txt: authors are still misinterpreting the chapter by humle et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3815.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3816.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3817.txt: they are definitely too small for figs | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3817.txt: authors are thinking of when they speak of a | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3818.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3819.txt: they are interacting with a human or with a computer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3819.txt: they are interacting with either a virtual avatar of a real person or with a computer driven agent, to play a dynamic game of catching a burglar on the screen | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3819.txt: authors are cited within text, the citation should read | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/382.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3820.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3821.txt: they are toxic | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3821.txt: they are the same age | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3822.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3823.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3824.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3825.txt: authors are the composers of this scale, would be the ideal place to take on such a task | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3825.txt: they are deemed statistically significant or not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3826.txt: they are relevant for the article | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3826.txt: they are supposed to represent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3827.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3828.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3829.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/383.txt: authors are sometimes discussing ammonoids too | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3830.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3831.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3832.txt: they are not willing to improve the scale and hence they should not discard any item | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3832.txt: authors are willing to compare mean values, they could safely use the t-test, since the distribution of possible sample mean values will be normal with such group sizes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3832.txt: they are intending to mean | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3832.txt: they are using is not prospective and hence they may not infer if the fas scoring | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3833.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3834.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3835.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3836.txt: they are mentioned in the section regarding ltp | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3837.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3838.txt: they are referred to in the dsm | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3838.txt: authors are encouraged to discuss the implications for their finding in terms of the potential ephemeral nature of online gaming-related problems, how their sample may have influenced this finding in their analysis, and also how these may differ by populations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3839.txt: they are from a small, specific sample of stroke patients | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/384.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3840.txt: they are not included in the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3841.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3842.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3843.txt: they are first introduced in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3844.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3845.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3846.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3847.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3848.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3849.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/385.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3850.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3851.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3852.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3853.txt: they are often more concerned with publishing in, instead choosing the most relevant, highest impact journal for their field | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3853.txt: authors are not aware of where this information can be | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3853.txt: they are review series in specific disciplines in science and social science | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3853.txt: they are not addressed until the last paragraph of the article and their benefits are not mentioned | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3853.txt: authors are not considering cc as part of this evaluation, they should define up front that the type of oa being analyzed refers to free content only | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3853.txt: they are often more concerned with publishing in the most relevant, highest impact journal for their field | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3853.txt: authors are allowed to publish and n for they are not allowed to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3853.txt: authors are not mentioning possible influences of the funders and the present research assessment criteria on the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3853.txt: authors are multiplying by a low | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3853.txt: they are close 120 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3854.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3855.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3856.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3857.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3858.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3859.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/386.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3860.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3861.txt: authors are correct regarding muscles, lung, cloacal glands and even the partial frog in the gut | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3861.txt: authors are welcome to contact me directly should they have questions or anything they wish to discuss | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3862.txt: they are also needed in the discussion section | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3863.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3864.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3865.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3866.txt: they are subplots of the same figure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3866.txt: they are included in table 1, but then not discussed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3867.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3868.txt: they are your key evidence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3869.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/387.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3870.txt: they are were very clear to someone tangential to the topic, but i think some organizational shifts in the results and discussion will make the content more accessible for those more interested in the parasitoid system than the necessarily very complex and detailed description of mite anatomy associated with species identification | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3871.txt: they are unwilling to undergo screening because pap tests are painful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3871.txt: they are still being tested | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3872.txt: they are also found in north korea | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3872.txt: they are all my comments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3873.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3874.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3875.txt: authors are of particular finding given the fact that hgi easy to calculate and widely available | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3876.txt: they are not so robust, they need more work in terms of pharmacology and use of irna | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3877.txt: they are inconsistent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3877.txt: authors are making a systematic review of the use of immunoepidemiological mathematical models of hiv | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3877.txt: they are not considered altogether | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3877.txt: authors are the ones stating that it could be modeled, or that they actually included this element in their model and, if so, if they were the only one considering tips | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3878.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3879.txt: authors are to be congratulated for attending to almost all of the constructive criticisms from the first round of review | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/388.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3880.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3881.txt: they are simply too complex to serve as a main figure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3881.txt: authors are discussing their findings in relation to what is known, but it is not always clear when new conclusions are being made and when they are simply stating the previous conclusions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3881.txt: they are largely the same format and just report the two main patterns | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3881.txt: they are targeted by the same mirna | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3882.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3883.txt: they are currently worded | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3883.txt: they are not independent, controlling for multiple tests would be beneficial | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3884.txt: they are typical individuals of the species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3884.txt: authors are deliberately selecting sequences that are close to the parental sequences and throwing out the rest, aren | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3884.txt: authors are not correctly interpreting the phylograms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3884.txt: they are willing to reinterpret the nrits and cpdna phylograms, the results, discussion and conclusions will be substantially improved | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3885.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3886.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3887.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3888.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3889.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/389.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3890.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3891.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3892.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3893.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3894.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3895.txt: they are making directional predictions, which may clarify matters, and in any case their findings are like many others | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3895.txt: they are tests of | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3896.txt: they are in lines 345-346 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3896.txt: they are trying to address | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3896.txt: authors are clear and robust, which support their conclusions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3897.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3898.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3899.txt: they are with individuals they have seen before | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/39.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/390.txt: they are media or because they happen to be there | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/390.txt: they are media workers or other workers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/390.txt: they are targeting individuals as media workers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/390.txt: they are media workers incidentally | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/390.txt: authors are actually talking about intentional | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/390.txt: they are not carrying weapons, and so should not be mistaken for, or assumed to be, combatants even when they are among un-uniformed combatants | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3900.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3901.txt: they are not cut, then bit score needs to be defined in the caption | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3902.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3903.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3904.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3905.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3906.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3907.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3908.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3909.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/391.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3910.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3911.txt: they are described in the results and the table | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3911.txt: they are not overstating what researchers may believe is happening, versus what researchers have actually documented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3912.txt: they are referring to recurrent tstage | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3913.txt: they are necessary to understand those figures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3913.txt: authors are using a broader definition of fertilization than the classical | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3913.txt: they are including sperm maturation in the epididymis and sperm capacitation in the female tract as part of fertilization | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3914.txt: author is a paid member of staff while the other i presume is some sort of associate, there is clearly the potential for a conflict of interest | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3914.txt: they are careful not overextend the reach of their findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3914.txt: authors are trying to do, but i think the study needs to do at least one or two of the following to be of much use to anyone | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3915.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3916.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3917.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3918.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3919.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/392.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3920.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3921.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3922.txt: authors are attempting to discuss | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3922.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3923.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3924.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3925.txt: they are referring to a sex effect or the study they mention only used female animals as its subjects | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3926.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3927.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3928.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3929.txt: authors are arguing for here, but is this really even possible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3929.txt: authors are proposing, but rather one that is crafted according to the language laterality question that is being addressed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3929.txt: authors are beholden to offer some more concrete suggestions here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3929.txt: they are attempting to isolate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/393.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3930.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3931.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3932.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3933.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3934.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3935.txt: they are not independent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3936.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3937.txt: authors are so reluctant to classify their sequences using the freshwater 16s database | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3937.txt: they are all relevant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3937.txt: they are specifically interested in constraining their datasets to the variables they measured | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3937.txt: authors are making vast generalizations about an entire lake based on 120 ml | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3938.txt: they are suggesting by inferring long-term trends from a two-point sampling in studies of inferred recent rapid evolutionary change | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3938.txt: they are to generate reliable estimates of change between time periods | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3939.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/394.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3940.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3941.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3942.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3943.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3944.txt: authors are finding are just transient, just acquired from the environment, but actually not living and interacting in the skin and hair of the bat, and perhaps they are not even active, since 16s rdna does not distinguish if they are dormant or even dead | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3944.txt: they are not rarefied | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3944.txt: they are or their meaning and the text is some case is too difficult or impossible to read, as was the case of s1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3944.txt: they are disorganized | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3944.txt: they are in contact with many environments, soil, air, plants etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3945.txt: they are the same thing, this needs to be clarified | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3946.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3947.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3948.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3949.txt: they are not in the results section | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/395.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3950.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3951.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3952.txt: authors are trying to convey here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3953.txt: authors are using their assumptions about female preference to define behaviors as rejection behaviors, instead of using actual preference data to assess whether females treat males they prefer differently from males they do not prefer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3954.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3955.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3956.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3957.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3958.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3959.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/396.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3960.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3961.txt: authors are hypothesizing that reduced qol impacts caregiver ability to maintain good mental health | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3961.txt: they are not measuring these things separately | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3961.txt: authors are only going to examine the regression in the diabetes group and it is unclear how the comparison group fits into this hypothesis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3961.txt: authors are referring to until later in the paragraph given that there is a body of literature on parent-child relationships | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3961.txt: authors are referring to marital relationships earlier on in the paragraph | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3961.txt: authors are referring to the parent or child | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3961.txt: authors are only going to examine the regression in the diabetes group and it is unclear how the comparison group fits into this hypothesis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3962.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3963.txt: they are to the ingroup | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3964.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3965.txt: they are simply looking at the normal morphology of microglia and astrocytes in horse | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3965.txt: authors are suggesting pain syndromes cause the microglial response or whether the response underlies the syndrome | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3965.txt: they are simply numerical differences as opposed to statistically significant differences, since no statistical comparisons were made | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3966.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3967.txt: authors are those mostly used by the entomologists and suit correctly the aim of the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3967.txt: authors are undoubtedly new to science and are presented in a clear way with sufficient illustrations to support their asserts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3967.txt: they are needed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3967.txt: they are somewhat alluded to in some of the diagnoses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3968.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3969.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/397.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3970.txt: they are publicly available prior to resubmission | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3971.txt: they are the same under the chosen precision | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3972.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3973.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3974.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3975.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3976.txt: they are still way too small | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3976.txt: they are included with the study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3977.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3978.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3979.txt: they are using the s | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3979.txt: they are using to make sure they more accurately present the research literature and how the findings add to that literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/398.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3980.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3981.txt: authors are really trying to tackle a difficult problem boldly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3981.txt: they are trying to quantify shell characters even though it is an extremely challenging thing to do | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3982.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3983.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3984.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3985.txt: they are foraging across a landscape | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3986.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3987.txt: authors are trying too hard to make this study seem relevant to sexual selection or behavioral ecology in general | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3987.txt: authors are trying to make this partial ethogram into something it isn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3987.txt: authors are recommending this as a research method | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3988.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3989.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/399.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3990.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3991.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3992.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3993.txt: they are isolated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3994.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3995.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3996.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3997.txt: they are correct that fully automated cros, or fully automated internal facilities, are the standard for industrial science, where reproducibility is paramount | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3997.txt: they are not listed here, as the paper must change significantly to warrant publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3998.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3999.txt: they are unable to prove that the background is heterogeneous from the larval perspective instead of plausible mechanistic or behavioural alternatives | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/3999.txt: they are combining hue with chroma | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/40.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/400.txt: they are of a large body size | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/400.txt: authors are attempting to show us | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4000.txt: they are always equivalent but different in sign for male and female and it does not seem necessary to report both | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4000.txt: they are speculating as per the journal instructions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4001.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4002.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4003.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4004.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4005.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4006.txt: author is valid as it has been used by others before | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4007.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4008.txt: authors are presenting specific data from a given human population, but they should keep clear what exactly is the novelty of their approach | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4009.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/401.txt: they are referred to as such in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4010.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4011.txt: they are not all the same, many studies on locomotion tend to argue for different modes while using different taxa | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4012.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4013.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4014.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4015.txt: they are not measuring a different effect when evaluating the assembly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4015.txt: they are rather small | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4016.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4017.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4018.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4019.txt: authors are reluctant to put null results or confusing results into a manuscript, but i would urge you to include these analyses anyway | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4019.txt: authors are reluctant to put null results or confusing results into a manuscript, but i would urge you to include these analyses anyway | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/402.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4020.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4021.txt: they are showing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4022.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4023.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4024.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4025.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4026.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4027.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4028.txt: authors are right that if all co-carers fully compensated for each other | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4028.txt: they are sufficiently numerous to talk about a typical response | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4028.txt: they are many reasons why load-lightening at the egg stage is very different, including the fact that no other group member in real time can respond | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4028.txt: they are totally different questions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4028.txt: they are compensatory | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4028.txt: authors are comfortable with including species in which the helpers are actually breeders | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4028.txt: they are not necessary transferrable to the point being made, and so are either confusing or mis-leading | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4029.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/403.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4030.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4031.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4032.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4033.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4034.txt: authors are not taking into account the multitude of observations showing that the other domains of mcak target it to the kinetochore, inner centromere, spindle poles, or plus-tips of microtubules | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4034.txt: they are supporting previously results but do not significantly add novel information | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4035.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4036.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4037.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4038.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4039.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/404.txt: they are all at too low a resolution for publication, they look fuzzy in my printed hardcopy, and they look fuzzy on the screen | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/404.txt: they are not listed as authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4040.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4041.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4042.txt: authors are reporting that some pathways discovered in the study, such as the insulin resistance pathway, age-rage | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4042.txt: they are statistically evaluated in a proper way | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4043.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4044.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4045.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4046.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4047.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4048.txt: they are not needed in this manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4049.txt: authors are careful in interpreting their results, but so much so that there is little that those working outside the salt marsh system can take away from the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/405.txt: authors are planning on utilizing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4050.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4051.txt: they are reliable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4051.txt: they are already listed in table 2 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4051.txt: they are already shown in table 3 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4052.txt: they are assumed to show is not presented and discussed convincingly, readers may not believe the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4053.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4054.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4055.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4056.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4057.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4058.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4059.txt: authors are solely attributing range shifts to climate change-temperature, but then as the discussion progresses bd and dry periods are also invoked as potential causes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/406.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4060.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4061.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4062.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4063.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4064.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4065.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4066.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4067.txt: they are clear up front to the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4068.txt: they are proven or not to have an effect on carbonic anhydrase ix | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4069.txt: they are to be included in a separate manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/407.txt: they are coming from, unless this information is published up front in each and every manuscript on these specimens | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4070.txt: they are based on a poor dataset | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4070.txt: they are now, figures better represent the data, also the map is definitely useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4070.txt: authors are considering, especially by the interception rate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4070.txt: authors are considering | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4070.txt: authors are trying to replicate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4071.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4072.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4073.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4074.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4075.txt: authors are encouraged to conduct a thorough review | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4076.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4077.txt: they are false positives | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4077.txt: they are apparently not identified base positions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4077.txt: they are grouped | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4078.txt: they are palythoa spp | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4078.txt: they are undesirable here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4079.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/408.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4080.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4081.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4082.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4083.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4084.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4085.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4086.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4087.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4088.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4089.txt: authors are aware of, there is a movement to make reporting of recreational | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4089.txt: they are in line with the original literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/409.txt: they are functionally equivalent in their ability to explain the data and that none of these models really stands out over the others | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/409.txt: they are carried out by groups of males that can overpower the female | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4090.txt: they are more closely related to inia, pontoporia and lipotes than they are to plantanista | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4090.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4090.txt: authors are not right in dismissing it necessarily, just that they don | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4091.txt: authors are referring to recommendations by imhoff-kunsch | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4092.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4093.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4094.txt: author is provided | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4095.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4096.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4097.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4098.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4099.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/41.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/410.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4100.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4101.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4102.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4103.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4104.txt: they are expressed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4105.txt: authors are to be congratulated for making virtually all of the requested changes to the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4105.txt: authors are correct that the work by hackett and colleagues is influenced by the fact that multiple sets to failure were performed in both their 2012 and 2016 studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4106.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4107.txt: authors are right in pointing out the importance of having an interactome in bovine | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4108.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4109.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/411.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4110.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4111.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4112.txt: authors are a bit too verbose | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4113.txt: they are basically unsupported | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4113.txt: they are separate characters | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4113.txt: they are quite similar to what is shown in this paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4113.txt: they are mentioned in the description, rather than sprl, tprl, and prsl | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4114.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4115.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4115.txt: they are described in their respective publications | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4115.txt: they are considering different estimands and different meanings of heterogeneity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4116.txt: they are being treated slightly differently from the non-pregnant females - and still having affiliative behaviors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4116.txt: authors are very upfront about limitations in their design | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4117.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4118.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4119.txt: they are indicated in the word document | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4119.txt: they are usually left out of major and important survey efforts, even though they are an important component of any coral reef ecosystem | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/412.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4120.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4121.txt: they are competing with species that use the resources in a similar fashion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4122.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4123.txt: they are metatarsals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4124.txt: authors are sure they are not owned dogs | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4125.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4126.txt: they are all incorporated in the revised manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4127.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4128.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4129.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/413.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4130.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4131.txt: they are homologous, or similar because they are similar no matter their histories | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4131.txt: they are similar for this manuscript only that they are | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4131.txt: they are a starting point to test putative positives | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4131.txt: authors are approaching these fundamental questions a little bit in an ad-hoc fashion in the last paragraph of their discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4132.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4133.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4134.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4135.txt: they are abbreviations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4135.txt: they are addressing, and then to describe what insight various potential patterns would provide | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4135.txt: authors are going to provide the delta k values they should explain what they mean in the methods section | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4135.txt: they are necessary | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4136.txt: authors are to include additional more comprehensive references | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4137.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4138.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4139.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/414.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4140.txt: authors are to be commended for this | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4140.txt: they are incapable of making this amino acid, so that arginine might be added to pangolin diets in captivity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4141.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4142.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4143.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4144.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4145.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4146.txt: they are related | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4147.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4148.txt: authors are very bold about their own results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4148.txt: they are comparing to morenocetus or they should state which definion of balaenula they are referring to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4148.txt: they are referring to otherwise their evidence cannot be accepted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4148.txt: they are describing in the text or remove the text about mpl 5-21 to avoid ambiguity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4148.txt: they are honest and clear in stating that the bizygomatic width overestimated the total length of b | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4148.txt: they are consistent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4149.txt: they are not recent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4149.txt: authors are referring to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4149.txt: they are not enough to perform a complete and solid analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/415.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4150.txt: authors are on to something here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4151.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4152.txt: authors are aware of this on line 350-352 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4153.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4154.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4155.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4156.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4157.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4158.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4159.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/416.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4160.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4161.txt: authors are urged to address all of the points presented in both reviews | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4161.txt: they are compared to recorded track | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4161.txt: they are set in | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4162.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4163.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4164.txt: authors are referring to by | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4164.txt: they are not significant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4165.txt: they are applicable only to hiv positive adults | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4166.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4167.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4168.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4169.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/417.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4170.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4171.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4172.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4173.txt: they are generally larger in larger populations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4173.txt: they are actually quite high given the magnitude of population divergence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4173.txt: authors are still using a smaller number of loci is used than i find to be common in most such studies, which often employ at least 10 microsatellite markers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4173.txt: they are interested in | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4173.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4173.txt: they are separated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4173.txt: they are estimated parameters rather than known values | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4173.txt: authors are a little confused to explain the genetic structure observed between the northern and southern pacific samples of patagonian toothfish | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4174.txt: they are not appropriate to in depth in the interpretation of the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4175.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4176.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4177.txt: they are first used in the manuscript, i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4178.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4179.txt: they are not and the block design does not help here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/418.txt: they are fine with their reviews being made public | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4180.txt: they are grazing herbivores, this is definitely not the case in australian waters where grazing herbivores are the minority | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4181.txt: they are in the abstract | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4182.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4183.txt: authors are actually comparing means, and second, the main effects in the 3-way anova should provide the answer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4183.txt: they are still some missing information in the statistical paragraph and some paragraphs of the discussion should be rewritten | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4183.txt: they are significant differences or not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4183.txt: they are significant differences between the planting ratios | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4183.txt: they are not working on l perenne and t | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4183.txt: they are considering seed biomass, germination, aboveground biomass, the density of the neighborhood plants etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4183.txt: they are 10 times bigger | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4183.txt: they are not saying that the resource competition is only related to lighting absorbing rather than root interaction | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4183.txt: they are around the plants in the root exclusion treatment, but what is the rationale for the placement in the treatment where root interactions are allowed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4183.txt: they are the same size in both treatments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4184.txt: they are not familiar with the experimental design that you adopt from past work | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4185.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4186.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4187.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4188.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4189.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/419.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4190.txt: they are faster | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4190.txt: they are more willing to switch strategies when it is optimal to do so | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4191.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4192.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4193.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4194.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4195.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4196.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4197.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4198.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4199.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/42.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/420.txt: authors are very categorical about sexual selection | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4200.txt: they are just a complement | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4201.txt: authors are producing, but many tm steps can be re-used by biotea | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4202.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4203.txt: they are not simulated in the network | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4203.txt: authors are counting the features of the hippocampus being introduced | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4203.txt: authors are considering an ordered set of place cells that fire in sequence within a theta cycle due to phase precession | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4204.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4205.txt: authors are clear on the validity of their findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4206.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4207.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4208.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4209.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/421.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4210.txt: authors are to be commended for the incredible breadth and depth of their analyses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4211.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4212.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4213.txt: they are not directly related to your findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4214.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4215.txt: they are detailed here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4215.txt: authors are well aware of this and state explicitly that their conclusions should be interpreted with this in mind | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4216.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4217.txt: they are appropriate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4217.txt: they are considered | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4218.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4219.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4219.txt: they are not that important in general | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4219.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4219.txt: they are more short events than intervals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4219.txt: they are sometimes in chronological order, sometimes in alphabetical order | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/422.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4220.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4221.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4222.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4223.txt: they are valid and provide a careful rebuttal if they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4223.txt: they are in the best position to advise fellow green crab biologists for getting better catch rates | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4223.txt: they are only evaluating steps 3-6 of catching a crab in a fukui trap | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4223.txt: they are not evaluating catch relative to abundance of crabs around the trap, nor are they considering the retention of target catch until the gear is hauled | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4224.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4225.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4226.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4227.txt: authors are comparing read mapping method, and correctly using blastn as an alternative to their tool, which has no real link to the high mutation rate observed in some viruses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4228.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4229.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/423.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4230.txt: they are difficult to see | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4231.txt: they are 10 to17 years-old, see below | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4231.txt: they are generally very timid and abandon the baits when workers of more aggressive species, or extirpators, arrive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4231.txt: they are territorial | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4232.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4233.txt: they are really valuable and open new paths for future investigation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4234.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4235.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4236.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4237.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4238.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4239.txt: they are structural or storage etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4239.txt: they are distantly related | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4239.txt: they are discussed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/424.txt: authors are cautious with the interpretation of their results, as trans-equatorial dispersal is not proven but only suggested based on the presence of diaspores on bird feathers prior to migration | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4240.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4241.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4242.txt: they are conspecific | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4243.txt: authors are claiming | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4244.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4245.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4246.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4247.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4248.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4249.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/425.txt: authors are suggested to test their new method in additional datasets | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/425.txt: authors are better cite some efficient metagenotic analysis methods such as parallel-meta | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/425.txt: authors are better discribe results on simulated data, and then on real data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4250.txt: authors are to be congratulated on taking on board the comments of the two reviewers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4251.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4252.txt: they are valuable | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4252.txt: they are proposing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4252.txt: they are different in some meaningful way from those in surrounding countries | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4253.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4254.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4255.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4256.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4257.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4258.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4259.txt: authors are clear about the relative robustness of their findings and which should be treated with caution | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/426.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4260.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4261.txt: authors are under-selling the value of their work and relevance | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4261.txt: authors are not using highly inbred populations and these populations are originating from different geographical locations where some degree of genetic drift, founder effects, selective pressures, etc | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4261.txt: they are in the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4262.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4263.txt: they are out of place here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4263.txt: they are all included | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4263.txt: they are in the phylogeny inference | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4264.txt: they are, compared to, for instance, the other two methods they mention as slow | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4265.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4266.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4267.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4268.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4269.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/427.txt: they are a good representation of the overall phenotype | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4270.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4271.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4272.txt: they are at least partially dependent on each other, making their question difficult to clearly answer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4273.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4274.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4275.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4276.txt: they are truly random | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4276.txt: they are truly random | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4277.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4278.txt: authors are essential for anyone interested in forecasting this kind of data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4278.txt: they are pursuing an unrealistic level of accuracy and detail | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4278.txt: they are doing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4278.txt: they are incredibly vagile, hard to detect, and the distributions of breeding birds are affected by many components besides environmental variables | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4279.txt: they are abbreviated, despite being common terminology | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4279.txt: they are, for the most part, appropriate to the objectives of the study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4279.txt: authors are quite clear about the process involved in these estimation, and provide details on exactly how the estimation was undertaken | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4279.txt: they are justified within the scope of the analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/428.txt: they are too general and the readers cannot see their relationship with the maple syrup yield | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4280.txt: they are going to compare between 2d and 3d | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4280.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4280.txt: they are recommending which could lead to very important and needed changes in the ways that coral reefs are studied | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4280.txt: they are recommending that these tools be used in monitoring, the authors should spend more time explaining the details of the meshing and calculation of area, which are non trivial and can result in fundamental differences in data types and quality | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4280.txt: they are going to compare between 2d and 3d | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4280.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4280.txt: they are used in most of the monitoring protocols of coral reefs, with key references | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4281.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4282.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4283.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4283.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4283.txt: they are able to put it to good use with their model | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4283.txt: they are used in a logical way and the analyses are statistically sound | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4283.txt: they are clearly not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4284.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4285.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4286.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4287.txt: they are not included in the rebuttal, and while i accept this explanation i do wonder how meaningful the conclusions that have been drawn are in their absence | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4287.txt: they are modelling | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4287.txt: they are purely statistical | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4287.txt: authors are claiming this is the only way to assess predictive performance, but it is definitely not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4287.txt: they are interesting, important, relevant, applicable, expected | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4287.txt: they are not intrinsically relevant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4287.txt: they are not logged, many individuals alive today will still be alive in 80 years which would imply no change in distribution from climatic factors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4288.txt: author is correct to point to the tendency of the full length alpha-actinin to aggregate in the conditions used for the bundling assays, therefore the dimerisation is not proven | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4288.txt: author is to be commended on the clarity of the paper and the direct and straightforward experimental design | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4289.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/429.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4290.txt: authors are updated in their research field | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4290.txt: they are presented in good resolution formats and well described | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4291.txt: they are not so the vertebrae are not truly amphiplatyan | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4291.txt: they are very slightly concave and therefore i have considered them to be amphicoelous | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4291.txt: they are neither truly amphicoelus | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4292.txt: authors are correct to suggest that post-hoc power analysis are not ideal, but it is still critical to ensure that sufficient animals have been examined | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4292.txt: they are not willing to conduct a post-hoc analyses then details of the prospective power that determined that n | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4292.txt: they are able to detect if the number of fish is insufficient the experiments should be repeated with greater numbers to support the findings | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4292.txt: they are encouraged to increase the number significantly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4293.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4294.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4295.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4296.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4297.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4298.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4299.txt: they are particularly important | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4299.txt: they are as close to triticeae-bromeae as to the basal pooid lineages and even less close to poeae than to the studied basal pooids | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4299.txt: they are described clearly and with sufficient detail | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4299.txt: authors are relevant and interesting, and their results show increased support for a lot of relationships that heretofore were poorly resolved | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4299.txt: authors are also ambiguous using other phylogenetic inference methods | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4299.txt: authors are trying to say here, but this sentence is somewhat awkward | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4299.txt: they are described in detail but the reader is left on her own to decide which topologies to consider the most plausible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4299.txt: they are accepted as being valid | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/43.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/430.txt: they are more likely to become invasive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/430.txt: they are more likely to become invasive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4300.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4301.txt: they are described at present | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4302.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4303.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4304.txt: they are deviating to, is it agricultural | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4304.txt: they are normally distributed and if not, use a mann-whitney | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4305.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4306.txt: they are not misleading | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4307.txt: they are impressively multidisciplinary | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4307.txt: authors are hoping for a very specific match | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4308.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4309.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/431.txt: authors are focusing on the freebayes version of the script, but a better explanation is needed for peerj readers, or else it might make sense to remove mention of the gatk version from the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4310.txt: they are coded | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4311.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4312.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4313.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4314.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4315.txt: they are not specific to the paragraph topic and the citations used are found in other places in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4315.txt: authors are moving in the right direction with the changes to their idb analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4315.txt: they are correct to do so since it will be non-informative in population structure analysis, but it still exists | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4315.txt: authors are writing english as a second language | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4315.txt: they are not expressed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4316.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4317.txt: they are well explained and the necessity of future evaluation is underlined i think that the article meets the criteria of peerj and it should be accepted now in the current form cite this review as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4318.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4319.txt: they are witnessing in central minnesota | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4319.txt: they are not replaced by golden-winged warblers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4319.txt: they are out-competed regionally and locally, leaving considerable habitat unoccupied | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4319.txt: they are factors we can readily measure | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/432.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4320.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4321.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4322.txt: they are members of lentibulariaceae family, i consider necessary that authors provide an explanation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4323.txt: they are surrounding, mucus, tissue, skeleton or gastric cavity associated microbes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4323.txt: they are contributing to adaption of coral colonies as is stated in the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4323.txt: they are easier to read and interpret | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4324.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4325.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4326.txt: authors are thoughtful in their discussion and conclusion and do not to over-speculate, which is to be commended | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4326.txt: authors are thoughtful in their discussion and conclusion and do not to over-speculate, which is to be commended | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4326.txt: authors are making here is important and correct | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4326.txt: authors are making about the etiology of frailty | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4326.txt: they are purely speculative but this can be improved | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4327.txt: authors are more critical regarding the interpretation of the data, and rewrite a few sentences in the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4327.txt: they are similar as stated in line 317 is incorrect, since there are major differences in the contrast between both species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4328.txt: authors are dismissing it very rapidly without digging it out completely, a couple important points | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4329.txt: they are happy with the updates and that the article is suitable for publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4329.txt: they are concerned with | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4329.txt: they are for the main effects of group, the the authors are welcome to simply collect more data until the bayes factor is able to discriminate the base model | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/433.txt: they are based on different assumptions, it can be useful to clarify this explicitly in the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4330.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4331.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4332.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4333.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4334.txt: authors are also citing, weaning | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4334.txt: they are already able to produce adult-like series but have no motivation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4335.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4336.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4337.txt: they are able to support their claims unambiguously | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4338.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4339.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/434.txt: they are within ranges seen in other papers then the literature will be advanced | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/434.txt: they are within ranges seen in other papers then the literature will be advanced | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/434.txt: authors are also forgetting that shirasu-hiza used a pathogen that largely activates the toll signaling pathway, though it works some through imd, while kuo used a microbe that was imd biased | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4340.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4341.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4342.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4343.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4344.txt: they are suggested for future applications | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4345.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4346.txt: they are measuring similar things | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4346.txt: authors are referring to with | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4346.txt: they are, it means all other tracks they measured are transmitted tracks or overprints, in which case measures of digit length loose meaning | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4346.txt: they are qualified as speculative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4346.txt: authors are free to contact me for any points raised on this review kind regards marco romano berlin 11 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4346.txt: they are not distinct from each other | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4347.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4348.txt: they are not available | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4349.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/435.txt: they are not using any form of nested analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/435.txt: they are using a systematic string of assumptions to move from known occupancy to quantifying potential impact | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4350.txt: they are used in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4351.txt: authors are unwilling to make this change, then perhaps it should be refocused | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4351.txt: authors are very dilute | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4352.txt: author is talking about the advantage of crediblemeds to other classification schemes, but the author hasn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4352.txt: author is right to make the point that the use of biophysically detailed models in drug safety testing should be justified | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4352.txt: they are even further down the other end of the spectrum from the ones that he focusses attention on here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4353.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4354.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4355.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4356.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4357.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4358.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4359.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/436.txt: they are a few typos | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4360.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4361.txt: they are relevant to the article hypothesis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4362.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4363.txt: they are oversimplifying the measure and actually just describing it with their new proposed acronym | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4363.txt: authors are interpreting | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4364.txt: they are not in hw, or have a lot of missing data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4365.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4366.txt: they are effectively getting the juice using the partially effective tools, which is why they then increase their use of always effective tools in phase 2 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4366.txt: they are in will be key for understanding the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4366.txt: they are reluctant to abandon a previously-rewarded response in so far as it had seemed to work | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4367.txt: authors are invited to address the issues raised, particularly in the review from the 1st reviewer, and resubmit | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4368.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4369.txt: they are predatory on diverse insects, they will reduce the visiting frequency of the flowers by the true | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/437.txt: they are different | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/437.txt: they are much closer to the g | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4370.txt: they are really necessary | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4371.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4372.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4373.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4374.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4375.txt: authors are founders and principals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4375.txt: they are principals in and cofounders of the company that produces the tool the performance and potential of which are under examination in this article | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4376.txt: they are generalizable beyond this micro-census scenario, perhaps use a different motivation to justify your study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4377.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4378.txt: they are impacting your systems | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4379.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/438.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4380.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4381.txt: they are done at different times and the contexts of the experiments will differ in many ways besides just differences in nase abundance among those times | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4382.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4383.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4384.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4385.txt: they are not indicated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4385.txt: authors are inconsistent throughout the manuscript with the use of abbreviations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4386.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4387.txt: authors are describing clear background of their purpose of study with proper references | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4387.txt: authors are not telling people that which one is better, and why | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4387.txt: authors are describing clear background of their purpose of study with proper references | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4388.txt: they are new or not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4389.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/439.txt: they are could you indicate this on figure 1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4390.txt: authors are trying to put across here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4390.txt: authors are trying to put across | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4391.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4392.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4393.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4394.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4395.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4396.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4397.txt: they are consistent throughout the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4398.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4399.txt: authors are dealing with perceivedly sound horses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4399.txt: they are not the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4399.txt: they are left forelimb | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4399.txt: they are too light | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/44.txt: they are currently written | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/440.txt: they are available | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4400.txt: authors are trying to answer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4401.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4402.txt: they are different phyla | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4402.txt: they are different phyla | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4403.txt: authors are comparing something that have been extensively compared in the literature and induces quite different adaptations following a training period | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4404.txt: they are both going to give you very different results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4405.txt: they are portrayed as fact with no references cited or not sufficient evidence provided | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4406.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4407.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4408.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4409.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/441.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4410.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4411.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4412.txt: authors are encouraged to provide | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4412.txt: they are allowed to describe the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4412.txt: they are encouraged to use square panels instead of long rectangles which is currently resulting in compressed y-axis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4413.txt: they are all statistically significantly better than chance, i would have substantial concerns about using these systems in clinical practice given their | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4414.txt: they are more likely to live | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4414.txt: they are more likely to live | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4415.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4416.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: they are worthy of publication | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: they are still hard to follow | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: they are epoch and period boundaries, others may not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: they are fairly evenly distributed throughout the cretaceous | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: authors are themselves fools as, if i did, i would have to include myself in this foolish category | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: authors are unwilling to plot up data where there are very few data points over fear of devaluing their manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: they are published | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: authors are talking about the face-value taxon counts or the subsampled diversity estimates | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: authors are using here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: authors are free to include whatever they like in an acknowledgements section, i personally feel it is better to keep things professional and to avoid making the reviewer vomit on the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: they are period and epoch boundaries | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: authors are using appropriate methodology | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: authors are blatantly misinterpreting the trends in the figures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: authors are trying to be witty and it doesn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: they are mirrors of one another in terms of the database content | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: they are two different databases which is very misleading for anyone who is not familiar with the politics of the paleobiology database | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: they are removing the early-mid jurassic | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: they are important | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4417.txt: authors are misinterpreting their own results in such a blatant fashion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4418.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4419.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/442.txt: they are generally thought to be beneficial overall because they prevent any one species from becoming competitively dominant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4420.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4421.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4422.txt: they are misidentifications | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4422.txt: they are sister species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4422.txt: they are all almost certainly all direct developers final para of discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4423.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4424.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4425.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4426.txt: they are to be particularly commended on greatly reducing the overall length of the introduction | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4426.txt: they are still speculation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4426.txt: they are not cited at all here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4426.txt: they are focusing on metoposaurus, but if the aim is to demonstrate how cranial histology can be used to predict skull stress and strain, then why not complete the study on an extant animal where cranial strain can be measured experimentally ex vivo or in vivo, and then compare these measurements to bone histology | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4426.txt: they are appropriate stress indicators | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4427.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4428.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4429.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/443.txt: authors are aware that the experimental design is not ideal but this study still has value in its current form | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4430.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4431.txt: they are set at the factory and may lose calibration over time | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4432.txt: authors are of low quality and need minor edits | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4432.txt: authors are encouraged to check their tables again | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4432.txt: they are being caught year round may be helpful and would help to support your seasonality hypothesis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4433.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4434.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4435.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4436.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4437.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4438.txt: authors are not willing to move this way, i cannot endorse the content of this study | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4438.txt: authors are trying to tell | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4438.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4438.txt: they are elite, please remove the word | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4439.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/444.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4440.txt: authors are going to favor permutation tests so heavily, they should include some of the drawbacks of permutation tests | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4440.txt: authors are estimating a large number of coefficients from this dataset, in table 4 there are 11 coefficients, which means barely 10 observations per coefficient | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4440.txt: they are using a | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4441.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4442.txt: they are cited, and then, they should use the corresponding abbreviation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4442.txt: they are filled only with two asterisks | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4443.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4444.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4445.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4446.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4447.txt: they are successively connected | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4448.txt: they are in conflict with already established terminology used throughout developmental studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4449.txt: they are trying to answer | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4449.txt: they are actually able to report, given the limitations of the data sets | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4449.txt: they are not necessarily long-term member of the holobiont, but they are still a potential inoculation source | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4449.txt: they are actually able to report, given the limitations of the data sets | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4449.txt: they are just reads and not contigs, are they normalized in any way to the reference genome size when determining abundance | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/445.txt: they are, but they do not deal with everything about the dpm | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4450.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4451.txt: they are consistent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4451.txt: they are currently replicating | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4452.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4453.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4453.txt: they are not completely supported and in the case of litter decay acceleration by high o3 concentration could even be mistaken | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4454.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4455.txt: authors are doing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4455.txt: authors are studying | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4455.txt: they are not able to find adult habitat which allows them to survive and reproduce | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4455.txt: they are harvested before they can reproduce | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4456.txt: they are pr genes or stress induced genes is not clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4457.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4458.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4459.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/446.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4460.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4461.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4462.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4463.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4464.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4465.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4466.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4467.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4468.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4469.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/447.txt: they are exploring | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/447.txt: they are now seem pretty obvious and incidental | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4470.txt: authors are trying to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4471.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4471.txt: they are usually helpful tools for further research | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4471.txt: authors are not always sufficiently careful not to overstretch the conclusions of the original papers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4472.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4473.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4474.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4475.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4476.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4477.txt: they are divergent in some aspects of their assessment | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4478.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4479.txt: authors are willing to make, and the authors will not change any more than they already did | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4479.txt: they are also in favor of the reviews being made pubic | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4479.txt: they are not necessarily wrong, but confuse, which diminishes the quality of your work | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4479.txt: they are wholly or partially obscured by the circles | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/448.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4480.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4481.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4482.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4483.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4484.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4485.txt: authors are using soil moisture as an explanatory variable for anpp instead of soil moisture | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4485.txt: they are using soil moisture would be warranted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4485.txt: authors are testing multiple hypothesis based on theory | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4485.txt: authors are indicating that ecosystem response was driven by the response of the dominant species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4486.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4487.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4488.txt: they are more keto yielding has been stated incorrectly - it is merely because for some metabolisms the capacity of b oxidation has been exhausted and so another form of fat | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4489.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/449.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4490.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4491.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4492.txt: they are driven by individual subjects with very strong signals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4493.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4494.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4495.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4496.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4497.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4498.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4499.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/45.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/450.txt: they are making, and the manner in which they want to present it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/450.txt: authors are looking for | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/450.txt: they are instead affecting my assumptions about their behavior in an unfamiliar task | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/450.txt: they are testing and finding | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4500.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4501.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4502.txt: they are very flexible in terms of regulating transcription in that they can either promote or repress transcription, and do so in many different ways | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4503.txt: authors are required | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4504.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4505.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4506.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4507.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4508.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4509.txt: authors are clearly thoughtful educators and raise important questions in the discussion that are worthy of further investigation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4509.txt: they are dynamic and complex systems with feedbacks and time-delays, not cause-and-effect | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/451.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4510.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4511.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4512.txt: they are discussed accordingly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4513.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4514.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4515.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4516.txt: they are presented and not only in the tables, which delays reader understanding | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4517.txt: authors are encouraged to expose their opinions and original thoughts in this journal | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4517.txt: authors are keen on extracting as much impact out of their results as possible, whereas others shy away from drawing inferences based on their findings, and thus, let others exploit their results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4517.txt: they are the ones who will suffer from their academic shyness, and others may reap the rewards of making interesting inferences from these findings, if they happen to notice them | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4517.txt: authors are uninterested in improving this aspect of the paper, i have nothing to add | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4517.txt: authors are apparently unaware that this also occurs in at least some lepospondyls, such as pantylus | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4518.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4519.txt: they are obligate coastal | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/452.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4520.txt: they are and what questions arise from their potential application to this system | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4520.txt: they are not technical terms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4520.txt: author is providing one or more examples, not necessarily the first or best | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4521.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4522.txt: authors are referring to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4522.txt: they are described within the text, tabulating these abbreviations with their meanings at the end of the article will make it easier for the reader | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4523.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4524.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4525.txt: they are many species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4525.txt: they are not studied species of anura from colombia would not be enough for their publication in an international journal with a wide audience | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4525.txt: they are more profitable in multiple aspects cite this review as | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4526.txt: they are not useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4526.txt: they are clearly described, but i am not convinced that this type of formal survey is needed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4527.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4528.txt: they are not explained | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4528.txt: they are not explained well enough so they seem arbitrarily chosen to the reader of the article | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4529.txt: they are indeterminate thyreophoran remains | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/453.txt: they are only there for | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/453.txt: they are informative of trends | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4530.txt: authors are putting into this, and i don | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4531.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4532.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4533.txt: they are expressed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4533.txt: they are not sensitive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4534.txt: they are the larvae of the two spiders | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4534.txt: they are simply kept up to experience | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4534.txt: they are the main structure of the article | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4534.txt: they are not explicit and therefore some results are not clear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4535.txt: authors are encouraged to respond and to resolve the issues raised | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4536.txt: they are derived | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4536.txt: they are derived data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4536.txt: they are using | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4536.txt: they are undertaking | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4536.txt: they are working | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4536.txt: they are implemented by the center | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4537.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4538.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4539.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/454.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4540.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4541.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4542.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4543.txt: they are fully resolved on both trees | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4543.txt: they are confusing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4544.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4545.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4546.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4547.txt: authors are upfront and candid about the limitations of their study, particularly the sample size | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4548.txt: they are, how they were fitted, or what the error bars are | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4548.txt: they are not displayed clearly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4548.txt: they are not used in the methods, result and discussion sections | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4548.txt: authors are not primary english speakers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4549.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/455.txt: they are self-contained, so it makes sense to consider publishing both works separately in the same journal | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/455.txt: authors are looking at | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4550.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4551.txt: authors are not consistent with the annotation of the figures in the text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4552.txt: they are seen in a proper context, and not as crystal contacts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4553.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4554.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4555.txt: they are referred to in the text of the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4556.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4557.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4558.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4559.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/456.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4560.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4561.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4562.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4563.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4564.txt: authors are using and instead of or | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4565.txt: authors are a bit more speculative than needed at times, but this does not detract from a good read | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4565.txt: authors are implying an evolutionary relationship between the terrestrial | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4566.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4567.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4568.txt: authors are tested with sufficient dataset collected from real patients unlike many manuscripts | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4568.txt: authors are claiming that they have ensured sufficient data for training | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4569.txt: authors are actually serious, here is my review | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4569.txt: they are exposed to more movies on a single trip than during an entire year on the ground, with selective remembering and confirmation bias doing the rest | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4569.txt: authors are willing to report a | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/457.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4570.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4571.txt: authors are interesting, but the authors should be careful to interpret the fact that the identified pathways are cancer-associated as a validation of their approach | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4572.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4573.txt: they are suggesting the more | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4573.txt: they are not exactly the same question | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4573.txt: they are in fact separate genetic populations in some idealized population genetics sense | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4574.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4575.txt: they are present, doesn | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4576.txt: they are affected by many sampling issues, especially changing population size over time | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4577.txt: they are immature or females | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4577.txt: they are helping to fill it | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4577.txt: they are able to list 11 other articles including 2 that focused on aquatic true bugs | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4577.txt: they are building on any of this previous work to help bring new understanding and filling important knowledge gaps | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4577.txt: they are present, sometimes not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4578.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4579.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/458.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4580.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4581.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4582.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4583.txt: they are not well structured and lead to substantial confusion and questions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4583.txt: they are just applying | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4584.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4585.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4586.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4587.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4588.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4589.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/459.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4590.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4591.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4592.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4593.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4594.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4595.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4596.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4597.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4597.txt: they are separate papers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4598.txt: they are meaningful to pool | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4598.txt: they are minor | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4599.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/46.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/460.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4600.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4601.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4602.txt: they are the same person, and he goes by t | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4603.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4604.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4605.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4606.txt: they are looking at data collected from 2 different p-application doses | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4606.txt: they are described in text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4606.txt: they are interesting but the text is very repetitive, information is already shown in tables | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4607.txt: they are synthesized might be helpful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4608.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4609.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/461.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4610.txt: they are based on past experience of working with images of other muscles and | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4610.txt: they are specific to the soleus images analysed here | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4611.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4612.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4613.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4614.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4615.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4616.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4617.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4618.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4619.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/462.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4620.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4621.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4622.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4623.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4624.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4625.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4626.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4627.txt: they are seeing is primarily explained by time of day and not the lps injection | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4627.txt: authors are inconsistent on defining abbreviations when introduced in new sections | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4628.txt: they are not supported by statistical values, they do not mean much | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4629.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/463.txt: they are to succeed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4630.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4631.txt: they are perceived much better | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4631.txt: they are justified by the results of the work done | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4632.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4633.txt: they are rigorously comparable, i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4633.txt: they are not visible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4633.txt: they are drawn to the attention of the authors for serious consideration that should lead to some rewriting of the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4634.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4635.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4636.txt: author is the discovery of additional | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4637.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4638.txt: they are as follows | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4639.txt: they are in text due to formatting problems | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/464.txt: they are also significant to help human to know the effects of land use | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4640.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4641.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4642.txt: they are rare can only really be judged in light of that | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4643.txt: they are not different the results of the study can be related to the given instruction, the gain or the horizontal flipped condition | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4644.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4645.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4646.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4647.txt: they are a person or place name | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4647.txt: authors are correct that little distribution work, with modeled or not, has included snakes, particularly a secretive but recognizable one such as the eastern coral snake, so this paper is a solid contribution in that regard | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4647.txt: they are undoubtedly underestimating climate shifts with their rcp 4 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4648.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4649.txt: authors are relevant to fill the gap of knowledge they identified and stated in the introduction | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4649.txt: authors are aware of this fact and this paper is good step to do so | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4649.txt: they are clearly in the legend | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/465.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4650.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4651.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4652.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4653.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4654.txt: they are implemented in a software | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4654.txt: they are more inclined to potamodromy rather than diadromy | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4654.txt: they are often most abundant in run and riffle habitats relative to pool habitats | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4654.txt: they are too off-topic to constitute a conclusions section in the paper | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4655.txt: they are presented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4655.txt: they are sometimes statistically significant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4655.txt: they are only a few steps away from statistical test output | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4655.txt: authors are saying that wolbachia should have no influence on host genes that are presumably optimized for fecundity | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4655.txt: authors are really referring to one cytoplasmically inherited lineage - the symbiont | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4656.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4657.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4658.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4659.txt: they are black due to the wet conditions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4659.txt: they are only correct in their tacit knowledge and in their local conditions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4659.txt: authors are australian and it is an example | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4659.txt: authors are lines 65-67 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4659.txt: they are useful for comparing locations with figure 2 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4659.txt: they are not included due to space limitations in the main article, it would be nice to see them at least in the supplementary material, but i would prefer to see them in the body of the article itself | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/466.txt: authors are to be commended for using a state-of-the-art mixed-effects modeling approach for their analyses, which allows for the proper treatment of the aq as a continuous variable, as well as for the inclusion of control variables as covariates | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/466.txt: authors are refreshingly candid about the possible limitations of their study, including the possible inefficacy of the ambiguity manipulation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/466.txt: they are most valuable when they emerge from studies employing well-established paradigms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4660.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4661.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4662.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4663.txt: they are detailed in the three reviews | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4663.txt: authors are commended for providing extensive raw data set, and thorough statistical analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4663.txt: they are pioneering studies russell et al | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4664.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4665.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4666.txt: they are unusual, and must be discussed for this reason | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4666.txt: they are also known for other species that could possibly be confused with k | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4667.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4668.txt: they are labeled | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4669.txt: they are, you may wish to discuss them when interpreting your results results - l228 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/467.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4670.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4671.txt: they are flat lines | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4671.txt: they are fixed and i can | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4671.txt: they are fixed and i can | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4671.txt: authors are broadly evaluating communities at phylum and class levels, which are poorly informative and lend no value beyond what already exists in the literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4671.txt: they are trying to show | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4672.txt: authors are right in their criticism to the example i had provided on the invasiveness of house sparrows in the first review | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4672.txt: they are out of the scope of the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4672.txt: they are clearly different, but also considered to belong to just one species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4672.txt: they are big but usually people associate the word | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4673.txt: they are also tolerant to the inhibitors derived from biomass hydrolysate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4673.txt: they are probably more suitable for industrial application | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4674.txt: authors are looking at and explain more about that | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4674.txt: they are talking about tcga-thca, thyroid carcinoma | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4675.txt: they are controls for the type of intervention | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4676.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4677.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4678.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4679.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/468.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4680.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4681.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4682.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4683.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4684.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4685.txt: they are internal structures or localized at the surface | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4685.txt: they are not involved in the pellet motion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4686.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4687.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4688.txt: authors are exactly trying to convey and how they are interpreting the results mentioned in this paragraph | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4689.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/469.txt: they are, seem sensible as they logically follow from the review, but no data are present | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4690.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4691.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4692.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4693.txt: they are defined | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4694.txt: authors are aware of the distortions introduced by genomiphi amplification, but nevertheless consider that | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4695.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4696.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4697.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4698.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4699.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/47.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/470.txt: they are very unclear | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4700.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4701.txt: authors are recommended to reorganize the paragraphs regarding behavioral and neurobiological correlates of ptsd and non-ptsd | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4701.txt: authors are strongly recommended to justify the use of these self-assessed checklist and scale considering that their findings are basically inconsistent with that from others | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4701.txt: authors are suggested to justify the examination for cognitive flexibility as well as the use of the tmt | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4701.txt: authors are suggested to provide some explanation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4702.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4703.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4704.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4705.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4706.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4707.txt: they are so destructive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4707.txt: authors are trying to accomplish, but with such a small sample size | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4708.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4709.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/471.txt: authors are aware of the limitations of their study, which concerns 4 animals only, very different one from the other in amount of time spent in captivity and in time spent painting i wonder whether simple physiological measures of stress | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4710.txt: authors are asking is whether changes in salivary il-6 and tnf alpha levels can be utilized for diagnosis of periodontal disease in pregnant women | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4710.txt: authors are analyzing only two cytokines | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4711.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4712.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4713.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4714.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4715.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4716.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4717.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4718.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4719.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/472.txt: they are not visible on this scale | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/472.txt: they are presenting | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/472.txt: they are valid in the sense of the actual experimental methods being well designed to test the relevant hypotheses and being given credence by solid statistical analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4720.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4721.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4722.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4723.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4724.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4725.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4726.txt: they are not the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4726.txt: they are not appropriate | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4727.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4728.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4729.txt: authors are not required to prove a review on the matter | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/473.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4730.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4731.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4732.txt: they are satisfied with the changes made and believe the manuscript has been strengthened as a result | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4732.txt: authors are using gaussian distributions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4733.txt: authors are clear about the limitations of such a broad approach and its individual components as proxies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4733.txt: authors are clear about their methodology, why some countries needed to be excluded due to data gaps, and the risks of aggregation | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4733.txt: they are even more grounded in what has been, and not in what is possible | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4734.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4735.txt: they are asking | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4735.txt: authors are likely seeing full integration of the transplanted soil into the local conditions of the new marsh | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4735.txt: they are indicator species, as determined by that specific test | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4736.txt: authors are missing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4736.txt: authors are recommended to provide more discussion of their findings in the context of recent studies of lateralized mother-infant interactions in both primates and non-primate mammals | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4737.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4738.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4739.txt: they are not closed to the atmosphere | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/474.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4740.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4741.txt: they are being referenced to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4741.txt: they are long pld larvae | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4742.txt: they are a detailed explanation of the three center boxes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4742.txt: they are redundant with the arrows in the center column | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4742.txt: they are actually not comma-separated but tab-separated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4743.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4744.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4745.txt: they are presented that way by the authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4745.txt: authors are present commonplace ideas in comparative psychology as either unexplored or very recent | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4745.txt: they are fundamentally the same | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4745.txt: they are trying to reinvent the wheel | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4745.txt: they are preferentially using spatial information to solve the task | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4745.txt: authors are saying haven | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4745.txt: authors are interested in comparing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4746.txt: they are mostly for mammal species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4746.txt: they are analyzing here for bcbe could be similarly affected by process and patterns that determined the exclusion of species from the analysis because such a clustered spatial characteristics | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4746.txt: they are no discussed in your manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4747.txt: authors are referring to | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4747.txt: authors are trying to make is to be found in the coral literature | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4748.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4749.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/475.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4750.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4751.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4752.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4753.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4754.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4755.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4756.txt: they are relatively strightforward analogs of previously-known ligands or whether they are novel scaffolds | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4757.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4758.txt: author is testing nine fertilizer treatments | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4758.txt: author is encouraged to include an information about weather for the whole study period and show its relation to aggregate distribution and soc content under discussion section | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4759.txt: they are not in agreement with the figures | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4759.txt: they are discussed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/476.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4760.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4761.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4762.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4763.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4764.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4765.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4766.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4767.txt: they are useful for this kind of studies | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4767.txt: they are biostratigraphic bins that are essentially based on the section in which you | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4768.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4769.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/477.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4770.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4771.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4772.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4773.txt: they are not exhaustive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4773.txt: they are sure that sandfish at this site did not exhibit any greater activity at particular times of day | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4773.txt: they are worth reporting and emphasizing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4773.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4774.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4775.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4776.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4777.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4778.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4778.txt: they are represented in the whole sample | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4779.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/478.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4780.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4781.txt: they are included, consider presenting the more accurate data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4782.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4783.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4784.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4785.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4786.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4787.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4788.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4789.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/479.txt: they are not universal across species or strains of lab | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/479.txt: they are of the same species of common commercial probiotics is unfounded and speculative | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/479.txt: they are also beneficial following consumption | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/479.txt: they are automatically beneficial | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/479.txt: they are not beneficial | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4790.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4791.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4792.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4793.txt: they are not reproductive pathogens, but rather beneficial partners | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4793.txt: they are distinct functions of the microbiome, but independent from each other | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4794.txt: they are raising, but at least to make the reader aware that this | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4794.txt: they are numbering within or across clusters | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4794.txt: authors are overly dismissive of | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4794.txt: authors are indirectly recommending when they suggest that one should consider whether the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4794.txt: authors are correct that non-independence occurs among clutches or mothers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4794.txt: they are based on maximum likelihood fitting, but apart from that there is not really much of a relation between the two approaches | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4794.txt: authors are correct that burnham and anderson | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4794.txt: authors are not clear about what they refer to and i fear they do not know either | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4795.txt: they are all effectively part of the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4795.txt: authors are not required to respond in more detail to each of reviewer 4 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4795.txt: authors are describing a tool that can be used to improve protocol reporting | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4795.txt: they are not available as part of the data for this paper since is not clear that that is what | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4795.txt: they are treated like any other scientific publication, as if they are just text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4795.txt: they are often very explicit in their instructions, naming specific repositories that comply with their requirements | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4795.txt: authors are aiming for machine-readable protocols, but that is not what the manuscript is about | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4795.txt: they are laying out essential elements of protocols in the form of a check list | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4795.txt: they are presented now is confusing | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4795.txt: authors are correct that it is time to treat protocols in a more standard and machine-friendly way and the authors have done a thorough review of the existing practices for reporting protocols in a subset of the life sciences and in that sense is a vital contribution | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4796.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4797.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4798.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4799.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/48.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/480.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4800.txt: authors are referred to chapter 35 of the book diseases of coral by moses and hallock | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4801.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4802.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4803.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4804.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4805.txt: authors are adding 10 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4806.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4807.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4808.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4808.txt: they are all hypothetically restored | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4809.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4809.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4809.txt: they are all well referenced, if all citations are listed or if all listed references are cited | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4809.txt: authors are dealing with a single species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/481.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4810.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4811.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4812.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4813.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4814.txt: they are, consider labelling 2 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4814.txt: they are mentioned and they should be introduced briefly in the methods | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4815.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4816.txt: they are displayed with an inefficient use of space and could be reformatted accordingly | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4817.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4818.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4819.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/482.txt: they are very different from what muscle physiology tells us the efficiency of a stretch-shortening cycle or pure concentric work is | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/482.txt: authors are actually using | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/482.txt: authors are referring to the | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/482.txt: they are not the same, as i | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/482.txt: authors are aware | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/482.txt: they are different from the usual | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4820.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4821.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4822.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4823.txt: they are not boosted | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4824.txt: authors are to be commended on selecting a very pertinent topic to aquatic weed conntrol, with international relevance | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4825.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4826.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4827.txt: they are concentrations of microbes that bloomed while in the refrigerator | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4828.txt: they are likely to find that the necessary formatting in lines has not been preserved in the ensuing proof | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4828.txt: authors are aiming to achieve | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4828.txt: they are substantial slabs of text, so i assume permission to do this was sought and obtained | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4829.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/483.txt: they are quite comprehensive for the biomedical and biological domains respectively, are the product of many thousands of man hours of collaborative development among domain experts, and their benefits for information retrieval have been well studied | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4830.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4831.txt: they are part of | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4831.txt: they are part of should be better controlled in the experimental material and be taken into account in the analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4831.txt: they are evaluating | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4832.txt: they are far too numerous to extract | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4832.txt: they are endangered mostly due to pest species | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4833.txt: they are resistant, as virus accumulation is decreased | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4834.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4835.txt: they are defined | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4836.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4837.txt: they are taken from | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4837.txt: they are, and i can | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4838.txt: they are taken along a line | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4838.txt: they are different from the tables in the main text | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4839.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/484.txt: they are also conducted gap-filling by traditional sanger sequencing to fill in the gaps, using a strategic pcr primer design for amplifying all regions of the mitochondrial genome from p | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4840.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4841.txt: they are too few from which to make conclusions | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4842.txt: they are mostly positive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4843.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4844.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4845.txt: they are focusing only on the relevant parameters, and not saying their methods is superior to other methods based on this single data set but in fact they state | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4846.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4847.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4848.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4849.txt: they are not exhaustive | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/485.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4850.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4851.txt: author is directly cited the year goes between | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4852.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4853.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4854.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4855.txt: authors are best-placed to decide on these matters, but i urge them to consider carefully the extent to which area-effects and collinearity might impact the inferred importance of certain variables | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4856.txt: they are too familiar with the case themselves | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4856.txt: they are consistent throughout | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4856.txt: they are too familiar with the case themselves | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4856.txt: they are, then n potentially equals 1 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4857.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4858.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4859.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/486.txt: they are compared with general hiv-positive parents to inform the representation of the sample or are used to identify sub-groups with disclosure patterns | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4860.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4861.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4862.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4863.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4864.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4865.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4866.txt: they are mainly neutral associations | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4866.txt: they are often discussed | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4866.txt: they are not in general the ones you predicted, and not the same ones for the three measures of life-history strategy, and there are not very many of them | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4866.txt: they are not independent of those recordings and diaries | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4866.txt: they are so weak | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4866.txt: they are basically uncorrelated | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4867.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4868.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4869.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4869.txt: they are relying on to make there arguments, and while i do not see any current alternatives to use these data, i think that pointing out where data is weak would help researchers in the future as they could focus on strengthening these areas | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4869.txt: authors are in a good situation to make these statements, or at least better than most readers | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/487.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4870.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4871.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4872.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4873.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4874.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4875.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4876.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4877.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4878.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4879.txt: they are aware of the silent e pattern as in | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/488.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4880.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4880.txt: they are complete enough to allow comparisons of various dimension to the clarkia rodent and they also show substantial variation in size | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4880.txt: they are technically incorrect | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4881.txt: they are from | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4882.txt: they are tested | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4883.txt: authors are only referring to pelagic fishes | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4884.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4885.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4886.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4887.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4888.txt: they are not | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4889.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/489.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4890.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4891.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4892.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4893.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4894.txt: authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4895.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4896.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4897.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4898.txt: they are investigating as it is explicitly stated in first sentence of the abstract | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4899.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/49.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/490.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4900.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4901.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4902.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4903.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4904.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4905.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4906.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4907.txt: they are displaced to the east when mapped in a gis, using the utm 19s coordinate system | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4907.txt: they are displaced to the east when mapped in a gis, using the utm 19s coordinate system | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4907.txt: authors are not exclusively seeing the ecological output of a partial response to just a few predictive factors, they could not expect such changes on ecological time | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4907.txt: they are really difficult to understand | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4908.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4909.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/491.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4910.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4911.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4912.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4913.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4914.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4915.txt: they are within the 0 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4915.txt: authors are analyzing their data for correlation against 16 tumor sample characteristics, so a possibility of finding a low statistically significant correlation by chance is high | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4915.txt: authors are demonstrating in their work, leads to a difference in angiogenesis, it is hard to see how the results fill a knowledge gap | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4916.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4917.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4918.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4919.txt: authors are facing here, but it is in the authors | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4919.txt: authors are directed to the comments of reviewer 3 that should be carefully considered and fully addressed in the revision | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4919.txt: authors are trying to say in places, as well as in interpreting the data | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/492.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4920.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4921.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4922.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4923.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4924.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4925.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4926.txt: they are important | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4926.txt: they are statistically significant | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4926.txt: they are not mentioned any more in the analysis | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4927.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4928.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4929.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/493.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4930.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4931.txt: they are presented | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4931.txt: they are not symmetrical about the mean | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4931.txt: they are not symmetrical about the mean | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4932.txt: they are labelled in the document and in the reviewer package differently 4 | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4932.txt: they are not necessarily in context with one another though they should be | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4932.txt: authors are very clear on what they can quantify | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4933.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4934.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4935.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4936.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4937.txt: they are limited to those supported by the results | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4938.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4939.txt: authors are observing may be because the gels are diffusion limited | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/494.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4940.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4941.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4942.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4943.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4944.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4945.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4946.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4947.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4948.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4949.txt: they are of equal rapidity, are equal to the body of the main stream | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4949.txt: authors are looking at pruned orchard trees | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/495.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4950.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4951.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4952.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4953.txt: they are still useful since the publication is 12 years old | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4953.txt: they are not italicized in text as is required | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4954.txt: author is right about this character, that is fine | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4954.txt: they are still relatively good, and do not dramatically dampen the manuscript | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4955.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4956.txt: they are not linked to the normal use of these terms | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4956.txt: they are certainly not the equivalent of ltm and stm | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4957.txt: they are inferring that nac prevented the cognitive impairments caused by 6ohda | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4958.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4959.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/496.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4960.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4961.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4962.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4963.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4964.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4965.txt: they are also shown now in the results section and included in the discussion | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4965.txt: they are of use to the community | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4965.txt: they are not actually mentioned anymore | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4965.txt: they are not actually mentioned anymore | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4966.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4967.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4968.txt: | |
| peerj_reviews_txt/4969.txt: | |
| peerj |
View raw
(Sorry about that, but we can’t show files that are this big right now.)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment