Upload additional files	DRR-202202-06/form/DRR-202202-06_Data-Review-MAT.pdf
Reviewer name and names of any other individual's who aided in reviewer	Mary Ann Tuli
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	Not all specimens are classified to species level, but the paper does not state they are so I think this is OK. They are all sand flies. Many of the 'locality' values in the GBIF download contain non-ascii characters which makes the value unreadable. Many of the specimens do not include GPS values. I initially thought that it was just the older records (<1980s) but this does not seem to be the case, thus probably reflects how data for those records were collected.
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
Recommendation	Accept