Speaking of the review status, despite having accepted your paper, I wish I could provide some brief commentary on the final version once this version is updated, especially after the comments added by the reviewer (ie, reviewer 4) just above me. 

An explanation of the goal has been added to both the abstract and the introduction to make it unambiguous. Anciliary analysis has been shuffled into the supplement.

The napkin calculation does not account for body size differences. I find the implicit (if existing) objection unconvincing, as there is (to my knowledge) no evidence to date that the ratio between brain size and body size itself is causally related to intelligence within individuals, independent of the effect body size and brain size have on intelligence. The gap in brain size between the sexes also exists after controlling for height, so even if the ratio theory were true, it would be irrelevant to this case in particular.

Authors have updated the submission to version #6

Authors have updated the submission to version #7

After reading this version, there is nothing I have to say above what I previously pointed out. Now looking at Figure 3, this is interesting as it shows that poorly motivated people will likely rush through the test to finish it as quickly as possible. This is a common problem with low-stake tests. There are obviously some ways of dealing with this issue. But since you've noticed this issue, I wished you would run robustness tests based on people who meet certain criteria (using different time completions for instance). I don't think it will change the results much given the pattern of Fig 3, but I would like you to remember this point for your later research, because in recent years I've read multiple papers repeatedly pointing out this issue. The ideal situation is having time response data on each item, as one could therefore model rapid guessing behaviour (a proxy for item motivation).

A few minor observations:

the results of an oblimin rotated factor analysis with 7 factors is available in Table 1.

It should be "are available"

 In light of the fact that adjusting for DIF bias between Anglos and Germans increases the difference slightly, the value of this result is quest

The sentence is unfinished.

The authors have satisfactorily addressed my concerns so I updated my decision to accept 

Errors in new ed are fixed

Authors have updated the submission to version #8

The submission was accepted for publication.