Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Yue Song
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	The authors have provided clues for accessing the data in public databases such as NCBI, but it seems that the data has not been released; At least, I haven't been able to obtain available data using the provided accession number (e.g. PRJNA1167451). I'm not sure if I've missed any information, but I believe it would be better if the data could be easily accessible to the public.
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?	No
Additional Comments	The authors used PacBio's third-generation sequencing technology for genome sequencing, which has become a "necessary option" for obtaining high-quality genomes in current genomic research. However, they did not further advance on the path of "assembling a chromosome-level genome" based on this version. Providing a chromosome-level genome would likely be more meaningful.
Is there sufficient detail in the methods and data-processing steps to allow reproduction?	No
Additional Comments	Regarding the genome assembly and annotation process, the method described by the authors is overly simplistic and lacks detailed information on the parameters and procedures used. This makes it difficult for other researchers to effectively replicate the results described in the article.
Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality?	No
Additional Comments	The authors have calculated the N50 of contigs and the completeness of BUSCO genes, which are indeed two commonly used indicators for assessing the quality of genome assemblies. However, it is still challenging to gain a clear understanding of the assembly quality based solely on these two indicators. Could other measurements be added, such as comparing the continuity and completeness of the assembly with those of closely related species or other comparable species' genomes? Additionally, there is a point that is difficult to understand: the authors report a BUSCO completeness of approximately 94% for the genome, yet a BUSCO completeness of 97% for the gene set. It is puzzling how BUSCO genes that are not annotated in the genome can still be present in the gene set.
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?	No
Additional Comments	As I mentioned earlier, the authors did not provide detailed information about the processing procedures and parameters, which makes it difficult for other researchers to replicate their results.
Any Additional Overall Comments to the Author	It is recommended that the authors provide a detailed description of the methods and easily accessible data retrieval methods. It would be even better if the authors could further provide a chromosome-level genome, as T2T (telomere-to-telomere) level genomes are becoming increasingly popular.
Recommendation	Minor Revision