First of all, I find the topic addressed by the author very interesting and relevant, and it indeed deserves further exploration in the literature, which currently seems rather sparse. To achieve this goal, however, it is important to address several points:The introduction should be expanded by delving into the cognitive, emotional, and somatic symptoms of grief related to the loss of a pet, and whether there are indications of a hypothetical duration. I wonder if it is possible that the signs are shorter compared to the loss of a human?The method section is completely missing the flowchart and PRISMA guidelines necessary to understand how many articles were initially selected and the criteria used for their inclusion and exclusion in the current study. [addressed]The inclusion criteria are missing, such as the temporal criteria; from which year were the articles included?It is not clear why the summary table of the results is divided into three tables. Do they represent three different things, or were they divided for other reasons? Please explain.When discussing the results, it would be best not to treat them as bullet points, but rather as a cohesive topic supported by citations.Overall, the work is significant but needs revisions to be positively evaluated by a scientific journal.

This article is very interesting and certainly quite passionate. I would like to provide some comments to the author for consideration if he wishes to submit his study to a scientific journal.• In its current state, it cannot be fully considered a review, but rather a commentary, opinion article, or editorial. However, I believe the author may intend to create a narrative review.• In some instances, 'Some Key Questions' risks being too colloquial. These points could be revised as working hypotheses.• In the abstract, the author mentions intriguing aspects, such as 'hyper-, hypo-, atypical, and indifferent parenting styles.' It would be interesting to develop these points further in the main text.• In the abstract, the author also states that 'Newly introduced terms like co-parenting, attachment-parenting, positive-parenting, LGBTQ-parenting, and free-range parenting, greater involvement of fathers in parenting roles to promote gender equality, increased use of Assistive Reproductive Technologies, mums-net parenting, and intentional single mother families, donor-conception, surrogacy, and families with trans-parents …' However, it remains unclear how these can be considered healthy or pathological forms of parenting.I reiterate, the concept is truly interesting, but the body of the text primarily discusses the effects on children of unhealthy parenting styles (evidence in favor). Therefore, I suggest either revising the abstract to align with the paper or amending the text to include dedicated paragraphs, addressing these overlooked points.I hope this has been helpful. Please keep us updated on the paper's progress. Best of luck.

The article 'The Traumas of Displacement and Not Belonging' by Susan Schwartz deals with the analytical theories and clinical examples of eradication.The topic is of great interest to psychology because it embraces the whole issue of the psychological correlates of migration and the (traumatic) effects on people forced to change state psyche.Some points might be useful to help the reader who comes from the psychological or even social sciences.For example, the incipit is straightforward and speaks of diplacement trauma without explaining its definition. Then the concept of trauma is developed at the end of the article, but this could be a key to anticipate.The reader deduces that a number of clinical cases are presented, but it would be better to give a title to the paragraphs that present cases or vignettes.The general organisation of the article could benefit from being divided into:1. Theoretical introduction (Including the concept of “trauma” and “trauma of displacement”);2 . Clinical case reports or vignettes (The case "Excluded in the USA" - The case "Displaced as 'the Enemy'" - The case "The Abject" - The case “Paternal trauma”); 3. Conclusions ("Analytical Repair" - how the cases were treated).Finally, there are whole paragraphs without bibliographical references. Do they contain the author's reflections or is a reference necessary?I hope to be helpful with this feedback to make the article clearer and more usable to the greatest number of readers, not only psychologists, psychotherapists, but also of professionals by different approaches.Amelia Rizzo, Psy, PhDUniversity of Messina, Italyamrizzo@unime.it