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.
Congratulations for meeting the high standard of PeerJ
No comments.
No comments.
No comments.
The authors responded to all my comments accordingly and considerably improved the manuscript.
Reviewers provided generally positive comments, but some changes are required.
[# 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/ #]
The academic language was very good and abstract was very well constructed.
However, it would be nice to check the space after/before the parenthesis in the introduction part as well as the underlined word Line 75. What was the idea to compare between Judo and gymnasts?
Table 1 and 2 should it be p< 0.001 instead of 0.000?
What did mean for "b, p-value " in the Table 1?
Why the number of the participants in each group was not similar for Table 1 and 2?
Please identify the tested movement on Table 2 ....F-V elbow flexion?
Did the value in Figure 3A being an average for all which should be in the Fig3B?
The study focused the structural and muscle function adaptation on gymnasts which the results gains in on these questions and methods was indeed easy to follow and all measures were provided the reliability.
However. there are still unclear some points.
Was there the same investigator in all measurement?
Line 138 shouldn't be BB and brachialis muscle at this MT measurement point as the same as (Miyatani et al. 2000)? and from that study, why this study did concern using CSA to normalize F instead of MV?
Why the MVC task was set at 40 deg for both elbow flexion and extension? Shouldn't be at the optimal angle?
Why the dynamic contraction task was done only for EF?
Result, it would be interesting to present the value of EMGMVC or submax perhaps in the Table1.
In the statistic part, the pearson r correlation was used, but why in the result the R2 was presented. Please clarify.
The report of F0, V0, Pmax, F-V slope should be partly presented in the result part.
The second last paragraph of discussion, Is there any document for EF in the relation of muscle fibre type and RFD?
Perspective, please check the "and" after the citations.
-
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
- The introduction while interesting should be clear and concise and be hypothesis driven to allow the reader to see the basis of your hypothesis. At present this could be improved. For example, in lines 70-76, authors must indicate what can explain these contradictory results.
- The authors need to clarify the purpose of the study.
- The methods need to be pristine so that the study can be replicated.
- A session describing the experimental design can help readers. In addition, this session may present the interval between the evaluations and the order that they were carried out.
- Why was the study conducted only with men?
- Why were reproducibility measures performed only for muscle thickness?
- The practical applications are for the coach or end user and needs to be clearer and more to the point.
- The discussion needs to reflect what you found, how it relates to the literature and then what it means physiologically.
- Authors should avoid speculation at the conclusion of the study.
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.