Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	none
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	none
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>	No
Additional Comments	below in the review
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	I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to review this manuscript. It is a solid, well-written, and highly relevant study for the field of global health, particularly concerning entomological surveillance of Chagas disease in non-endemic regions. The authors’ effort to systematize occurrence data of triatomines outside the Americas bringing together nearly a century’s worth of records into a curated and accessible database represents a significant contribution to the scientific community and public health programs. In the data description, I suggest updating the number of currently recognized genera, which now stands at 19. Please refer to: Paiva VF, de Oliveira J, Belintani T, Galvão C, Gil-Santana HR, da Rosa JA. Hospesneotomae n. gen. of the Triatomini tribe presents a turnaround in the taxonomy of the Triatoma protracta species complex. Sci Rep. 2025 Mar 9;15(1):8143. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-91399-w. Another relevant point is to consider the occurrence of Triatoma rubrofasciata in Europe: Collantes F, Campos-Serrano JF, Ruiz-Arrondo I. Accidental importation of the vector of Chagas disease, Triatoma rubrofasciata (De Geer, 1773) (Hemiptera, Reduviidae, Triatominae), in Europe. J Vector Ecol. 2023 Jun;48(1):63-65. doi: 10.52707/1081-1710-48.1.63. I would, however, like to suggest a few specific adjustments aimed at improving the clarity and precision of the information presented. Firstly, I noticed a minor inconsistency in the data: the manuscript states that 299 records contain a collection date (“eventDate”), but upon accessing the dataset published on GBIF, I found only 289 records with this field completed. Similarly, it is stated that approximately 33% of records lack a date, whereas the actual figure appears to be closer to 27% (107 records without a date out of 396 total). I recommend reviewing and adjusting these figures to ensure consistency between the manuscript and the dataset. Another important point concerns the dataset’s license. The manuscript refers to a CC0 license, whereas the license registered on GBIF is CC BY-NC 4.0. I suggest correcting this information to accurately reflect the data’s access and reuse policy. I also noted that 46 records include dates that do not follow the ISO 8601 format, which may affect the dataset’s interoperability. I recommend reviewing and standardizing these entries using the YYYY-MM-DD format, in accordance with GBIF guidelines. With respect to the content of the manuscript, I commend the integration of data from citizen science sources (such as iNaturalist), which innovatively broadens the scope and contemporaneity of the dataset. This approach could be further enriched by a brief discussion on the strengths and limitations of such data for entomological surveillance purposes. Finally, I acknowledge and appreciate the transparent discussion of potential biases within the dataset, especially regarding the predominance of records in domestic and peridomestic habitats. It might be valuable to emphasize a bit more the potential impact of this limitation on future ecological analyses and to suggest possible strategies to encourage records from sylvatic environments. In summary, this is an excellent piece of work that, with a few minor adjustments, will certainly have even greater impact and utility. I recommend the acceptance of the manuscript pending minor revisions.
Recommendation	Minor Revision