This paper has already had one round of review and the previous reviewers comments have been sent back to the authors.

This review of the paper therefore focusses on the question of whether the authors have responded adequately to the issues raised in the original review.

Most of the responses of the authors to the original review are adequate, however, one significant problem remains, specifically regarding the main criticism of the paper from Reviewer #1: "I think the paper as a whole really needs some more empirical evidence to back up some of the claims and recommendations, and for the recommendations to be more specific".

The authors have responded by saying "Some of our recommendations are not backed up by data because the source for many of the suggestions we are providing is our own experience". Indeed the revised paper contains several occurrences of statements such as "In the authors' experience", "we observe" and so on. Many of the recommendations in the paper amount to little more than a recapitulation of common practice.

I agree with the criticism from Reviewer #1. Without the backing of data, the paper does not satisfy the requirements of a research publication.

Level of interest

Please indicate how interesting you found the manuscript:
An article of limited interest

Quality of written English

Please indicate the quality of language in the manuscript:
Needs some language corrections before being published

Declaration of competing interests
Please complete a declaration of competing interests, considering the following questions:
1. Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
2. Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript, either now or in the future?
3. Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
4. Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
5. Do you have any other financial competing interests?
6. Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper?

If you can answer no to all of the above, write 'I declare that I have no competing interests' below. If your reply is yes to any, please give details below.
I declare that I have no competing interests.

I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal. I understand that my name will be included on my report to the authors and, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, my named report including any attachments I upload will be posted on the website along with the authors' responses. I agree for my report to be made available under an Open Access Creative Commons CC-BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). I understand that any comments which I do not wish to be included in my named report can be included as confidential comments to the editors, which will not be published.
I agree to the open peer review policy of the journal.

Authors' response to reviews: (http://www.gigasciencejournal.com/imedia/7966917572012169_comment.pdf)