Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract needs to be revised. Currently half of abstract is consisting of  introduction to the topic. Methodology needs to be concisely written. Conclusion lacks clarity.

Introduction: This section is unnecessarily long with respect to communication type of manuscript. One and half paragraph is sufficient.:

Results: It is better, data of graph be represented in tables because there are fewer values found in this study.

Discussion: This section needs to be reduced

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments:

I read the manuscript entitled "Seasonal pattern in serum estradiol, progesterone, and prolactin concentrations in rescued wild female Taiwanese pangolin (Manis pentadactyla pentadactyla). I did not find any conclusion of the study or key messages from which the reader will feel interested. In conclusion, the authors just described some limitations. Hoe those limitations will be minimized in future studies was not mentioned. Sample size and sampling strategies have the big question.

Specific questions:

-Why author does not compare the natural breeding data with captive breeding data? It will add value to the manuscript if the author compares the natural breeding pattern especially season (months) and age with present data. The author can make an additional graph or table for that.

-What is the significance of the study? I think the author missed this point in the introduction and discussion. If it is an endangered species (animal), needs to provide a number of populations locally and globally over the years. Therefore, it will be highlighted the conservation issues.

-This study was conducted for a long time, and the factors involved with reproductive hormones usually varied with environments (temperature, humidity, precipitation etc.), and the environmental variation is also seen the year to year. So, how author minimize those issues?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for improving Manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript improves a bit but still space to improve. I suggest revisions with language and spelling.