Upload additional files	DRR-202202-08/form/GigaByte_Review_DRR_202202_08_Tick_CJA_includes_Data_Review_08Mar2022.pdf
Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Chris Armit
Do you understand and agree to our policy of having open and named reviews, and having your review included with the published papers. (If no, please inform the editor that you cannot review this manuscript.)	Yes
Is the language of sufficient quality?	Yes
Please add additional comments on language quality to clarify if needed
Are all data available and do they match the descriptions in the paper?	No
Additional Comments	1. There is reference to NEON datasets in the Data Availability section of the manuscript. However, the relationship between the GBIF dataset and the various NEON datasets is very confusing. For example, consider the following statements in the Data Availability section of the manuscript. • “These data along with other related datasets are also available in a different format from the NEON data portal.” • Closely related NEON datasets describing tick-borne pathogens in small mammals (https://doi.org/10.48443/6pfn-t955) as well as small mammal diversity and abundance (https://doi.org/10.48443/h3dk-3a71) and breeding landbird diversity and abundance (https://doi.org/10.48443/88sy-ah40) that may serve as tick hosts are also available for the same sites and an overlapping time-frame. 2. There are no protozoan parasites listed in the GBIF SIMPLE table. I recommend that the authors update the Data Availability section of the manuscript so that it unambiguously describes the Dataset that is detailed in the manuscript. In addition, I request that the authors confirm whether protozoan parasites were identified in this study, and that they update the GBIF record accordingly.
Are the data and metadata consistent with relevant minimum information or reporting standards? See GigaDB checklists for examples <a href="http://gigadb.org/site/guide" target="_blank">http://gigadb.org/site/guide</a>	Yes
Additional Comments
Is the data acquisition clear, complete and methodologically sound?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is there sufficient detail in the methods and data-processing steps to allow reproduction?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is the validation suitable for this type of data?	Yes
Additional Comments
Is there sufficient information for others to reuse this dataset or integrate it with other data?	Yes
Additional Comments
Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author	This Data Release manuscript describes tick abundance in the USA. The manuscript is well written, the dataset is in English, and the Metadata consists of 428,960 human observations of sampled ticks. The GBIF summary table with the Metadata was included in the Darwin Core DwC package. Of note, the 2,757 Latitude / Longitude Geographic Locations are listed in the GBIF Darwin Core DwC package “event.txt” file rather than the GBIF Darwin Core DwC package “occurrence.txt” file. However, GBIF have been particularly helpful by integrating the contents of these two files into a GBIF SIMPLE table that can be downloaded from GBIF and that includes all 428,960 human observations plus accompanying Latitude / Longitude Geographic Locations, Country Code, Event Dates, and Taxonomic Keys Of note, in the GBIF Dataset Description, it states the following: • “A subset of identified nymphal ticks are tested for the presence of bacterial and protozoan pathogens” However, the SIMPLE table that can be downloaded from GBIF only includes Ixodida (ticks) and bacterial pathogens of ticks. Consequently, protozoan pathogens are missing from the GBIF dataset. Of the 428,960 human observations of sampled ticks, there are a total of 92,645 samples that have been identified at the species level. The License for this Dataset is: CC-0 1.0 The major issues with this Dataset are as follows: 1. There is reference to NEON datasets in the Data Availability section of the manuscript. However, the relationship between the GBIF dataset and the various NEON datasets is very confusing. For example, consider the following statements in the Data Availability section of the manuscript. • “These data along with other related datasets are also available in a different format from the NEON data portal.” • Closely related NEON datasets describing tick-borne pathogens in small mammals (https://doi.org/10.48443/6pfn-t955) as well as small mammal diversity and abundance (https://doi.org/10.48443/h3dk-3a71) and breeding landbird diversity and abundance (https://doi.org/10.48443/88sy-ah40) that may serve as tick hosts are also available for the same sites and an overlapping time-frame. 2. There are no protozoan parasites listed in the GBIF SIMPLE table. I recommend that the authors update the Data Availability section of the manuscript so that it unambiguously describes the Dataset that is detailed in the manuscript. In addition, I request that the authors confirm whether protozoan parasites were identified in this study, and that they update the GBIF record accordingly.
Recommendation	Minor Revision