<p>For Dr. Fernando Andres Polanco and Dr. Mario Laborda.</p>
<p>There is no theoretic analysis of the results. In the conclusions, there is a very brief mention of a possible mechanism of social buffer. I think is very interesting, but a better theoretic analysis would require direct reference to associative learning theories of inhibition, such as the Rescorla-Wagner model, for example. I did not include it in the authors comments because it did not seem to me like a very relevant part of their review. The data presented is more of an exploration of the conditions and limits of social buffering.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The lack of a methodology to the review makes me see all the information presented in the review through that lenses. The results of different experiments and even species seem to support each other, but articles may have been selected for this very reason, making conclusions easier to make. For example, if I make a search of my own I find this article <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44329">https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44329</a> that is the effect tested on zebrafish, where only visual but no olfactory stimuli produced the buffering effect. This slightly complicates their story on the preponderance of olfactory stimuli on rats, the whole section might look different, maybe more complete on species differences.</p>
<p>The decision to whether invite to resubmit with revision or reject would be if Dr. Fernando is ok with having this type of narrative review with no clear method or inclusion criteria in the journal. I personally would invite to resubmit after a major revision, and only accept if they can include the methods section.</p>