All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for your consideration of our last suggestions.
I apologize for my delay in make my decision. Some details remain before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. Please take into consideration the last reviewers' suggestions. In line 86 of the Introduction section you wrote "restricted ROM", However, you defined ROM as restricted range of motion, please check this point.
good
good
good
i would like to thank the authors for their patience and work fro improving their manuscript.
my single comment here is regarding the footnotes of the tables, its still not written correctly. foot notes used to explain any abbreviation mentioned inside the table even if it was explained in the main text (the table is an idependant identity). so please add the explanation (full name ) for every letter or abbreviation in the table
examples:
SNAGs, sustained natural .....
VAS, visual analog scale
n, number
I have received three reviews of your work. They all find that it could be an exciting contribution. However, a lot of work must be done to make the manuscript publishable. As you will see, the reviewers have done a detailed job. I am particularly concerned about the objections made to your methodological strategy, which lacks sufficient detail. According to our reviewer, you should report the evidence behind the effectiveness of both SNAGs and MR using recent systematic reviews. The reviewers also asked several questions and identify flaws in the paper that you need to take in full consideration, including even the language issue.
Please pay attention to the annotated pdfs. Thank you.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
first of all, i would like to thank the authors for their efforts and interesting manuscript.
yet i have few general comment:
1- the English language used was acceptable, and clear, yet it need extra revision by a native English person.
2- the literature was sufficient and cover adequate knowledge about the topic.
3- figures presented are not in a good quality regarding the resolution. and need some modifications as i recommended in the attached annotated pdf file.
4- the tables missed some data, and i posted some comments on this issue.
5- the article structure is good, and my single comment here is about the lack of randomization. however, i posted few comment i believe they will increase the strengths of the article.
no comment
no comment
No
No
No
The findings of this study add on support to the existing literature. Future research could concentrate on different perspectives of the treatment and outcome measures.
the articles fails to meet your standards in introduction and discussion. too long paragraphs as it were not concise and clear.
no comment
no comment
your work is fine but needs rewriting to get into point and to justify your study without writing many mechanisms to explain your idea
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.