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.
Accept in current form. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Michelle Ploughman, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have not offered changes but have given logical rebuttal to the previous comments.
As above, the authors have not made changes to the manuscript based on comments but have offered some constructive rebuttals.
Appropriate changes made
As you will see, two referees are relatively enthusiastic about the paper. For one reviewer, there are a few more issues that deserved some of your attention. The comments are very constructive and clear.
[# 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. #]
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
All correct and interesting. I believe the paper meets the standards
Methods for the systematic review are properly described. Meet the standards.
Impact and novelty. Conclusions are well stated, linked to goals.
line 473 Quevedo (2015) is a mistake. Should be Quevedo, 2014
There is some very relevant literature missing, particularly on handedness in sport. The general literature on hand and eye dominance is well covered but the sport specific literature is not well addressed. Below is a recent edited book on laterality in sport that would be a good place to start. The editors such as Florian Loffing have published widely on laterailty in sport and barely feature here, so checking them out would be beneficial to building your rationale and conclusions.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Laterality_in_Sports.html?id=MBOKCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&redir_esc=y
I think the fundamental question here is 'is there enough evidence in this field to warrant a systematic review'?
It is true that this topic has not reviewed before, but that doesn’t offer strong justification for the need to do this work and the research questions do not reflect the state of the literature in this area. The review is conducted nicely but it feels like a premature time for a systematic review, very few papers have studied this question, particularly on the combination of eye and hand dominance. Those that have are very different and often answering very different questions.
Furthermore, work in binocular tasks in sport has found no effect of eye dominance on performance, so strong justification for the need to address that question is needed.
Prior reading should have quickly made it clear that no research has ever looked at this laterality profiles and psychological aspects in sport so again trying to conduct a systematic review addressing that question feels very strange and this element should be removed.
More work has come out since this search was done that would be relevant to the question (e.g., https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2021.1997011). But still something more like a scoping review would seem more appropriate, including questioning whether there is a need to look at ocular dominance at all outside monocular aiming tasks and aiming to develop a picture of the field and guide the primary work that is needed rather than expecting to make any strong conclusions on such a limited evidence base.
There are some issues to raise about interpretation of some of the papers here. For example, you mentioned that (line 484), 'Mann, Runswick & Allen (2016) proved how a specific cricket batting technique is more adaptative for C-HELPs.' This study did not measure batting technique and suggested there was no effect at all of ocular dominance and that handedness was solely responsible for any differences.
I think this can be a useful piece of work, but should not be presented as a systematic review when this area is in need of far more primary research to justify the questions this paper tried to address.
The manuscript is well-written and provides good background and rationale. Please see a few minor notes in the comments within the manuscript regarding grammar and figures.
No comment. The study was well designed, and I believe the question is relevant.
Findings are reported in a clear and concise manner. Conclusions, limitations, and future directions are included. Please see my comments in the manuscript. Perhaps most importantly, I feel that more information on biomechanical technique changes related to laterality is needed. If the data is available, it would be helpful to include information about the specific type of technique changes associated with crossed/uncrossed profiles in certain sports.
I commend the authors for taking care to be thorough in methods and reporting. Please see my full comments in the annotated PDF. Each highlighted text has an associated 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.