Average rating: | Rated 4.5 of 5. |
Level of importance: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of validity: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Level of completeness: | Rated 5 of 5. |
Level of comprehensibility: | Rated 4 of 5. |
Competing interests: | None |
I'd like to thank the authors for their detailed responses to my comment, and updating the paper.
Some minor comments:
You have a 'Results and discussion' section and a 'Discussion' section. This would be better as a Results section and a Discussion section
In the paper, you refer to sections, but might be best to refer to section names (e.g. Methods) or even subsection names.