Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Song Yue
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	The description of the data in the article is generally correct, but there are some inconsistencies. e.g. in line 186, the author used single-copy orthologs from the actinopterygii set of OrthoDB (v10) to assess assembly completeness but using vertebrate set for the comparison with other fish genomes. All the other species are also fish genomes, so why not use the same database (e.g. actinopterygii)?
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	it is best to provide relevant information about protein-coding genes i think
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?	No
Additional Comments	(1) It is better to provide detailed software parameters and the description of how to assemble contigs into scaffold is not clear enough. (2) The method of how to identify single-copy orthologs is not clearly described
Is there sufficient data validation and statistical analyses of data quality?	No
Additional Comments	I don't think it's enough to just rely on single-copy orthologs and/or synteny blocks to assess the genome quality, maybe it would be better to add some others, e.g. reads mapping?
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	(1) In line 223, the authors just provide how many scaffolds there are in the final assembly version, but how many chromosomes are assembled and how about the proportion of scaffold or contigs which have been located into the chromosomes. These information is not found in the MS. Note that there is already published a genome for this genus in NCBI, but only at the contig level, if using the Hi-C data could provide the chromosomal level one, I think it would be more useful (2) In line 252, I noticed there was not mentioned about gene sets, especially the protein-coding genes, how many coding genes are there in this genome? (3) In figure 4, many cross-linking intensities are not obvious, which may be related to sequencing depth of Hi-C data, I can't figure out how many chromosomes are there in the final assembly from this diagram. (4) Some minor bugs, in FIGURE CAPTIONS, figure 6, here the author used the ray-finned fish, right? I think it is a mistake here, cause in line 186, the author mentioned vertebrata set.
Recommendation	Minor Revision