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.
Can be accepted in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Michelle Ploughman, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Congratulations to the authors for their efforts. If the article is suitable for reviewers and editors, it can be published.
Everything is fine.
Everything is fine.
Everything is fine.
Dear Author,
Thank you for your effort, I think your manuscript is ready to publish.
Dear Author,
Thank you for your effort, I think your manuscript is ready to publish.
Dear Author,
Thank you for your effort, I think your manuscript is ready to publish.
Dear Author,
Thank you for your effort, I think your manuscript is ready to publish.
I examined the rebuttal letter and also text carefully.. Authors improved the article.. In my opinion, it is ready for publication..
I examined the rebuttal letter and also text carefully.. Authors improved the article.. In my opinion, it is ready for publication..
I examined the rebuttal letter and also text carefully.. Authors improved the article.. In my opinion, it is ready for publication..
I examined the rebuttal letter and also text carefully.. Authors improved the article.. In my opinion, it is ready for publication..
The reviewers agreed that the article has potential, but some changes must be conducted before acceptance.
[# 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. #]
General Comments
I congratulate the authors for their efforts. This research has a really nice design and a large dataset. However, I have some doubts. I have stated my doubts and recommendations.
It is very nicely designed.
The findings are pretty good. Graphics just need to be added to better convey the findings to the readers.
Dear Authors
-Thank you for your interesting research, generally, your manuscript is valuable for sports sciences and soccer. I think your paper needs some minor grammatical corrections. In addition, I will write some minor revisions below.
Abstract
-If it is possible please revise the background section. I think you can write more specific information about HMLD for soccer.
Introduction
-Line 77-81 It would be more appropriate if the two sentences in these lines were combined and written.
-Please add your main hypothesis at the end of the introduction
Materials & Method, Results and discussion no need any revisions.
-Please edit in English to make your article more readable.
Your paper experimental design is sufficient
Your paper's findings are so valuable
I have no additional comments
Many thanks to the authors for this beautiful work.
-In the introduction, why only the HMLD profile was chosen, why the HMDL assessment is important and why it is important should be explained in the context of player position and league level. In other words, the importance of the study in terms of literature should be mentioned.
In the method section, the research design should be based on scientific sources.
Are the matches of all teams in the 1st and 2nd leagues analyzed in Laliga? Information must be given.
In the method section, adverse weather conditions? It should be explained.
How long the matches specified in the method section were analyzed and by whom. It should be explained.
The discussion section is very short. Not enough current resources have been used. This section should be written in detail for those who increase the number of references. In addition, the findings in the discussion section could not be concluded sufficiently. The reasons for the findings should be explained in detail. (For example, there is no difference in HMDL in the first and second leagues)
After corrections, the article can be published.
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.