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.
The reviewers are in agreement that the article is now Acceptable
According to the attached notes.
I'm not the best person to review English. As for the references, context among others after the evaluation of the presented version, in my view it is in agreement, as well as the rest of the topics mentioned here
With regard to experimental design, the manuscript, in the view of this reviewer, is in accordance with international standards for publication, presenting sufficient robustness and scientific rigor for publication.
Regarding the validity of the discoveries, these really are current, being a very important and current theme.
According to the attached notes, I consider the manuscript in publishing conditions
First of all, the reviewer would like to thank the authors for their work and efforts in trying to improve sports science knowledge. All necessary amendments have been incorporated according to reviewer feedback.
An article is an interesting approach to the Impact of climatic conditions projected at the World Cup in Qatar 2022 on repeated maximal efforts in soccer players. The study is well designed and well-written, with a great introduction proposing the usefulness of the topic and a clear outline of the research question
The statistical analysis has been performed appropriately and rigorously. The manuscript was presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. Overall the discussion is well-written and incorporates relevant literature.
Accepted.
Best regards
The corrections were made by authors
The corrections were made by authors
The corrections were made by authors
The corrections were made by authors. They improve the manuscript. I think that the article is ready for publication.
The article has merit, however, some improvements must be done. Please consider the suggestions of reviewers.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response 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 response 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 response letter. Directions on how to prepare a response 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 copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
As noted in the attachment
As noted in the attachment
As noted in the attachment
As noted in the attachment
The manuscript is clearly written and understandable. it is well designed and well-written, with a great introduction proposing the usefulness of the topic and a clear outline of the research question. Figures and Tables are well shown
The method is correctly explained. It could very easily be repeated. The interpretation was done correctly. Technically flawless study
The conclusions were made correctly in
accordance with the results. Overall, this is a nice study that could have great practical application when integrated with soccer players relating climate and their performances
The reviewer would like to thank the authors for their work and efforts in trying to improve sports science knowledge. The authors are commended on their efforts thus far.
Necessary explanations weere given in the file. Corrections were marked with yellow
The english language of the study should be professionally corrected.
Necessary explanations weere given in the file. Corrections were marked with yellow
Necessary explanations weere given in the file. Corrections were marked with yellow.
According to the quality of this journal, the methods section of this study is quite simple and should be improved.The reasons for the findings should be explained in the discussion section.
The authors should take into account the corrections in the file.
References should be arranged according to the journal format.
Statistical analysis section should be developed.
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.