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.
Dear authors. We are happy to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted.
Regards
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Michelle Ploughman, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors, congratulations, your manuscript has the potential to be published by PeerJ. However, major revisions need to be done. Please, after observing all the guidelines of the two reviewers, resubmit the manuscript to our journal for the final review. This new submission is part of the process of evaluation by PeerJ but doesn't warrant it.
[# 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. #]
The text is clear and not ambiguous. In general, the citations are good, but I suggest the author review the citation in lines 79-81. It is possible to find more recent authors that propose the relation between aerobic exercise and cognitive function.
In line 108 please check de form of citation “(Clarke & Glines, 2015)”
The figures present the data necessary for results comprehension, but they could have high resolution.
Although of the small sample, the methodology is sufficiently detailed to be replicated.
The methodology is satisfactory, but the small sample is not justifiable due to the dimension of the researched population. The sample calculation should be informed.
Due to the absence of sample calculation would be important to determine the effect size of the study.
The research limitations (like the small sample and effect size absence) should be clearly specified in the results.
First, I would like to congratulate the authors for the manuscript. All considerations and questions are for the purpose of improving it.
Introduction
• I suggest briefly reporting characteristics of the study population, why do we assess is important?
Method
• Was the sample of 15 individuals sufficient to find the associations? Please provide information on sampling power.
• Were students evaluated as well? The method does not contain this information, please insert it.
• What were the adjustment variables in the multiple linear regression?
Results
• Why didn't other regression parameters appear? Beta, standardized beta, R2?
Discussion
• What is the practical application of the study?
no comment'
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.