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 authors addressed the reviewers' comments correctly and the changes are adequate; therefore, the manuscript deserves to be published.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
Please reply point by point to reviewer 2's comments.
[# 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 study is based on interesting and current topics. Hypotesis is underpinned by an up-to-date and compelling background.
The methodology adopted to verify the three hypotheses is well organized. The results, even when they have not fully confirmed all three hypotheses, are descriptive and convincing. The manuscript can be accepted in its current form.
The results, even when they have not fully confirmed all three hypotheses, are descriptive and convincing. The manuscript can be accepted in its current form.
The study is interesting and complies with the standards of the journal. The article includes sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate the purpose. It is written correctly
Overall, the methodology is clearly explained. The tools used are validated and reliable.
This section is well written, but the purpose of the study is unclear. I suggest inserting the phrase "the purpose 1 (2,3) of the study was ...”, as in the results section.
no comment. The discussions are clear and to point.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Abstract
It is written correctly. Gives highlights from each section of the paper.
Introduction
This section is well written, but the purpose of the study is unclear. I suggest inserting the phrase "the purpose 1 (2,3) of the study was ...”, as in the results section.
Methods
Overall, the methodology is clearly explained. The tools used are validated and reliable.
The statistical techniques used are appropriate.
However, in table 2 the Paired t-test is reported but, in the text, the Two RM ANOVA, I would suggest standardizing.
The authors declare an observational study design. I would suggest inserting the appropriate Strobe checklist and flow
https://www.strobe-statement.org/checklists/
Results
The results are clear and appropriate
Discussion
The discussions are clear and to point. The limitations are described.
Conclusions
The authors' conclusions are justified. The take-home message is clear.
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.