The overall opinion of the 4 reviewers is that paper is well written, interesting, and appropriate for the journal. I agree with the reviewers. They have also made useful suggestions for improving the manuscript which the authors should incorporate.

I think most of the suggestions made by the reviewers are relatively minor and something that the authors can carry out, as they have already indicated that they will do. In summary, these are the main areas that I have identified (and the authors agree on these based on their responses) for modifying the manuscript:

-Reviewers 2 and 4 have mainly very minor comments. The authors should incorporate these in the revised manuscript, as they have already indicated.

-While reviewers 1 and 3 have mostly minor comments, they also have some methodological concerns. I think, however, that the authors have explained in their responses some of these concerns and have indicated modifications to make to the manuscript to make more clear their methodology and address the concerns of reviewers 1 and 3. I suggest that the authors implement what they have suggested to do here.

-The authors should implement the specific or minor comments made by reviewers 1 and 3.

-Reviewer 3 is also concerned about the wordiness of the paper. The author should keep this in mind in making their modifications.

-Additionally, reviewer 3 suggested that the literature review be expanded to include more references from peer-reviewed journals. I agree with the reviewer here, and the authors do as well.

-Reviewer 3 also makes some suggestions to tables and figures in the manuscript that should be incorporated.