I do not find tables 2 and 3 to be helpful. The DIC and mean squared error results of table 2 are better stated in the text, or as adjuncts to the presentations of the models. (In addition, I would prefer root mean squared error if you feel the need to present such a summary at all.) Table 3 is full of numbers that are essentially uninterpretable; for example, why would a reader care, for instance, that the 2.5 percentage point of the posterior distribution of beta.1 is “1.936”? I myself have put in tables such as this in my own research reports and articles, but now I have the evangelism of the reformed sinner and will do my best to stop this practice.

Table 4 is similarly useless. Please figure out what you would like to convey to the reader and then figure out how best to do this, whether it be graphically or in the main text.

Figure 1. In the caption, please state where this is. Given that your journal has reviewers from all over the world, it may have international readers as well.

Figure 10. This needs to be explained better. Anything with numbers such as “0.00005” on the x-axis needs to be explained better (and probably rescaled).

Yes, I realize these comments are superficial. I hope they are helpful nonetheless and that other reviewers will consider the more substantive aspects of the article.