<p>The manuscript offers a Narrative Review comparing studies of social buffering across species. This is a timely new and a contribution to Interamerican psychology: &nbsp;The manuscript expands the understanding of the topic. Nevertheless, there are problems to correct before I can recommend it for publication.</p>
<p>The manuscript is not based upon a systematic examination. There is nothing wrong with narrative reviews either. However, authors must declare it. The absence of a method section is a major concern. Reviews should have specification of how article were included into the review. Who take the decisions of inclusions? what is the training or expertise of the person who did the search? What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria? How was the data analyzed? What data was registered form studies? &nbsp;Without these answers is difficult to evaluate whether Authors critically review relevant literature. Nevertheless, they demonstrate an understanding of current knowledge related to the topic of social buffering. One can notice that author build on existing literature in formulating ideas for this submission, but this is not stated I the current version of the manuscript.</p>
<p>The manuscript is well written in general. However, authors should look for grammar and spelling, e.g., change “Te” for “The”, be consistent with the verb tenses, check for run on sentences, etc. The author appropriately references primary and secondary sources, and indicate any headings and sub-headings, using the style of the current APA publication manual. The term social buffering should be included on the title.<br><br></p>
<p>The conclusion should mention as limitations the disadvantage of narrative reviews: A low validity of the conclusion due to a lack of systematicity in the definition of the variables, search of studies, inclusion of studies, analysis and integration of the results, as well as other bias (author, publication, etc) that cannot be addressed in a narrative review. Nevertheless, after preventing readers and clarifying how the narrative review was done, I think that the review may become a contribution to RIP. I am sure that the topic is very interesting for the readers of the journal.</p>