Basic reporting This is my second review to the manuscript entitled “Dung beetle species introductions: When an ecosystem service provider transforms into an invasive species” submitted by Pokhrel et al. to PeerJ. The manuscript regards beetle invasion events worldwide and the reasons why the analyzed species were successful becoming invasive. The text is again very well-written, and as a review, it is easy to read, going direct to the point regarding invasive beetle species. Although it is not an observational experiment, as I was expecting in the first review, the text is suitable for publication. Below I raised some very minor issues, what, from my point of view, grants the acceptance of the manuscript. Experimental design The manuscript is not an experiment. As a review paper, it is suitable for publication. Validity of the findings The findings reviewed and suggested by the authors are suitable for publication in PeerJ. Comments for the Author ABSTRACT [L22-23] You said you corrected it, but here the species names’ still lack authority and year of description. You need to do this in both first time you cite the species in both Abstract and Main text.

INTRODUCTION [L49] It seems that there is something missing after “naturalised”. “as a naturalised” what? Maybe they meant “as naturalized”, without the “a”.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY I suggestion you to change the word “methodology” in this section for “methods” only. Methodology implies that you will study methods, but here it only refers to the means you used to reach an end.