In my view, the manuscript describes a thorough and well-executed study, and the field methods are suited to addressing the questions, although the use of controls is not consistent and not always clear. The analyses seem mostly correct. The manuscript is generally clear, although sections (especially in the discussion) would benefit from rephrasing for clarity and brevity. There are a number of general and specific problems with the manuscript:- 1- The work is mostly descriptive and not focused on specific hypotheses.

2- The work is very specific, in terms of control method - the manuscript would benefit from the discussion of the wider relevance of the study.

3- Unfortunately, there are substantial flaws in the simulations and the reporting of simulated data. The authors do not use sufficient simulation replicates to establish convincing conclusions, do not report summaries of simulation data, and do not calculate sufficient summary statistics.

In addition to the previous points, there are some special observations that must be taken into consideration 1- The title is informative and relevant. 2- The abstract It is not clear what the study found and how they did it. 3- The references are relevant but not recent. 4- The introduction does not inform the reader about the topic. 5- The background of the problem is not clear. 6- Undetermined the Roadmap of the introduction body so that reader knows what's coming up. 7- The methodology provides a clear description of all processes 8- The results of the analysis must be included either in the text or as tables and figures. 9- This section should discuss the implications of the findings in the context of existing research and highlight the limitations of the study.