Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Fei Li, Shili Li
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?	Yes
Additional Comments
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 paper entitled “Chromosome-level genome assemblies of five Sinocyclocheilus species” reported a chromosome-level golden-line barbel genome by using combination of Pacbio and Hi-C data. Using this chromosome-level assembly as reference, the author also constructed other four psedo chromosome-level assemblies of S.anophthalmus, S. maitianheensis, S. anshuiensis, and S. rhinocerous. These data are really important resource for conservation of these endanger species. However, some important results have not shown: 1. Protein BUSCO result has not been shown. 2. Raw reads were not uploaded to NCBI. 3. What’s the detailed number for functional annotation. Some minor suggestions: Add “,” before “and conservation”. What’s meaning of “R & D”? Line 58, “a good model” should be “good models”. Line 64, remove “at first”. Line 84, change “a” to “the”. Line 90, change ‘muscle’ to “muscle tissue”. Line 105, remove ‘which was’. Line 112, remove ‘this study’. Line 122, change “Repeat annotation, gene prediction, and function prediction” to “Annotation of repeat, gene and function”. Line 137, ‘with’ should be ‘by using’. Line 127, remove ‘(TEs)’. Line 134, What’s meaning of NCBI GenBank? Remove GenBank. Line 140, ‘was’ should be ‘were’. Line 178, ‘Species’ should be ‘species’.
Recommendation	Minor Revision