<p>Major Comments</p>
<ol>
<li>The objective of this review is important for the literature on conditioning paradigms. The biggest problem with the review is the confusing order of the body. It starts with different sections that contain details about different experimental paradigms, making the aversive section only one of them, and the methodology for it is listed after it.</li>
</ol>
<p>There is little justification why only aversive conditioning was included in the literature search, and how it compares to the literature on other paradigms. I think it needs a different order to understand the decisions of the authors to search only a few keywords and only on aversive conditioning.</p>
<ol start="2">
<li>I would like more details about the zebrafish in laboratory settings. I am not familiar with fish care, so I'm not sure is the details in p.4 paragraph 1 are enough for a proper zebrafish care.</li>
<li>p.6 Paragraph 2, Memory section.</li>
</ol>
<p>This section is very confusing in general:</p>
<p>Where it says that the fear training memory can be recorded for up to 14 days, I do not understand exactly what this means. Is it that zebrafish will remember a single trial for 14 days? and after that show no memory of the trial? This is confusing because in the next sentence it says, "extinction occurs after four days", is this equaling day with trial and it means four trials of extinction training or four days of time just passing? if the second, then the use of "extinction" to refer to a different process than conditioning extinction is confusing, in the context of an article that uses conditioning language abundantly.</p>
<p>same paragraph "(...) it is reported that fish", I think you meant zebrafish.</p>
<p>"When latencies were evaluated...", latencies of what exactly? it is not explained.</p>
<p>"To assess memory in such work, we used the algorithm taken from Piront and Schmidt" and then a formula that makes it sound that you made some kind of meta-analysis of results but then show no such results.</p>
<ol start="4">
<li>The intro of the "Aversive conditioning" section is also poorly written. It does not connect avoidance and escape to aversive stimuli. I think this paragraph needs a complete rewrite. It greatly contrasts with the "Aversive stimuli" section that is nicely written.</li>
<li>In the "Protocol and devices" section, please explain the difference between passive and active avoidance paradigms. Also, explain in more detail what do you mean when you say that the fish "swim towards them" when talking about passive avoidance paradigms.</li>
<li>My own search with the same string produces the same number of results (106), so the search is reproducible. I'd put more detail because I had to fiddle a little to get the same result: All document types were searched and the search was done with the "Theme" function that searches title, abstract and keywords. But why was the scientific name of zebrafish not included? aversive stimuli also produce other types of conditioning other than avoidance and escape, such as flavor aversion conditioning and fear conditioning. If the scope of the review is "aversive stimuli" I do not see why would only escape and avoidance would be included. I think this review can incorporate the aversive conditioning literature more in general.</li>
<li>Several details on methodology are missing, for example, how many people did the article screening, if more than one how was their concordance and how were disagreements handled. In the flow diagram it says that 35 articles were excluded in a second round of exclusion, but details about why these articles were excluded are not included in the methods section. All these details need to be included.</li>
<li>In the Discussion and conclusions section there are some details about how to properly prepare a water tank for zebrafish. I think this can be incorporated into previous sections instead of the discussion.</li>
<li>In the discussion, more searches on other databases are mentioned, why were they not included in the screening?</li>
<li>The chase paradigm detailed in p. 13 paragraph 3 is only mentioned in the discussion. I think it should be explained in the body together with the other paradigms and its limitations discussed.</li>
</ol>
<p>Minor comments</p>
<p>p.1 paragraph 1</p>
<p>However, a clear fish model was lacking, and standardization towards a particular fish species is rather recent</p>
<p>"a clear fish model was lacking" sounds like half a sentence to me, please confirm the wording.</p>
<p>p.3 paragraph 3</p>
<p>Environmental cues are one of the mechanisms for sex determination, temperature being one of the most studied for this purpose (Liew et al., 2012)</p>
<p>“Environmental cues” is the correct language for this concept?</p>
<p>p.4 Paragraph 1</p>
<p>Habituation process of an organism allows the study of learning tasks in relation to several environmental and neurobiological variables</p>
<p>I think I understand the point of this sentence, the wording is confusing, please explain more clearly.</p>
<p>I had no problem with the rest of the article. I think it is very clearly written in general.</p>