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 article was improved during the revision stages and can be accepted in its current form.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Justin Keogh, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Revisions were made to the manuscript and the authors' responses. In view of the adjustments presented, I consider the manuscript in a condition to be published.
.
.
.
The authors improved the article in the latest stage of revision. However, we would like to ask for additional changes in methods and results to enhance the clarity of information and guarantee replicability.
Congratulations
Congratulations
Congratulations
Congratulations
General comments:
Title
Are presented satisfactorily.
Abstract
It is written in a structured way, however, the methodology is written in a very summarized way which ends up making the findings and conclusions of the article.
Please confirm that the Keywords are listed as descriptors in health sciences.
Introduction
It should initially present a more general approach and gradually address the problem (gap) and then present the objective.
Mentioning that there are few studies does not seem to me to be a good problem. Although the introduction is well written, better identification of the problem would help a lot in sustaining the objectives.
Methods
It should present more clearly the design of the study. A CONSORT or time line, should be presented in order to get a better view of the study design.
The sample should be better explained with the number of subjects presented initially and then present the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Statistical treatment should be better detailed in order to better follow what has been done. Please consult Cohen (1988), data such as effect size would help a lot to have a better view of the findings.
Results
Are presented satisfactorily. However, the mentioned in the methodology must be observed and the main results must be better explained.
Discussion
Are presented satisfactorily.
Conclusion
Are presented satisfactorily.
References
We ask you to confirm the formatting of the references. Of the 27 references, 13 are current and 14 have been published for more than five years. Please update references.
Overview
The manuscript presented addresses a relevant research topic.
It would be advisable to do a general review.
Methods
It should present more clearly the design of the study. A CONSORT or time line, should be presented in order to get a better view of the study design.
The sample should be better explained with the number of subjects presented initially and then present the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Statistical treatment should be better detailed in order to better follow what has been done. Please consult Cohen (1988), data such as effect size would help a lot to have a better view of the findings.
Results
Are presented satisfactorily. However, the mentioned in the methodology must be observed and the main results must be better explained.
As attached notes
No comment
No comment
No comment
Congratulations on a much improved manuscript.
The reviewers support the idea that the article has merit. however, improvements must be performed. Please carefully consider the comments and suggestions of the three reviewers.
[# 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. #]
Dear authors,
The article is valuable in terms of its subject and scope. Thank you for the effort you put into your research.
After a few minor corrections, I think your research is fit to be published for peerj.
-Please review some English mistakes.
-Please include your main hypothesis in your research at the end of the introduction.
I think that the experimental design and method section are sufficient.
I think the results section is sufficient.
After the minor verifications I mentioned in the Basic reports, your research is suitable for publication.
General comments:
Title
Are presented satisfactorily.
Abstract
I consider the abstract to be relatively well written, however, it would be necessary to insert some absolute values, in addition to the statistical values. I also suggest that the last part suggesting other studies be taken from the abstract and that the methodology be better detailed.
Introduction
The introduction is not starting from general to specific. It should initially present a more general approach and gradually address the problem (gap) and then present the objective.
The problem must be better identified. The introduction should focus on the proposed test construct.
Please make a link between the problem and the proposed objective.
It would be indicated that the study hypotheses to be answered were presented.
Methods
It should present more clearly the design of the study. A CONSORT or time line, should be presented in order to get a better view of the study design.
The sample should be better explained with the number of subjects presented initially and then present the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Which program or reference was used to arrive at the number of participants. Some statistical program was used. Why this number of evaluated.
The methodology is confusing, it suggests that it be divided into topics, design, sample, instruments, procedures and statistics.
The place of insertion of figures and tables must be pointed out in the text.
The figures must meet ethical standards and a stripe must be placed as a way of preserving the identity of the participants.
It was mentioned that there would be a five-minute, 48-hour break for recovery. Please put a reference so that this rest time is enough for the proposed.
The instruments and procedures must be referenced from other studies.
If a new instrument was proposed, there should be a topic regarding the construct of this instrument to justify its use.
Statistical treatment should be better detailed in order to better follow what has been done. I suggest reviewing the design and statistical analysis for possible validation of said test and also consulting Cohen (1988).
As attached notes
Results
As mentioned earlier, as the design and statistics are not properly described, the results end up being poor. To use a new instrument, some parameters must be respected. I suggest that the results be reviewed in view of the mentioned in the methodology.
Discussion
Despite the discussion being relatively well written, the aforementioned problems do not allow the results presented to be enough to give an answer and credibility to the evaluations.
I suggest that the methodology be adequate and from there that the studies presented in the discussion are used, solidifying the answer.
Conclusion
In view of what was mentioned in the methodology, the conclusion ends up being weakened. It would also be important to focus more on the practical applications of the findings.
References
Please review the formatting of references. Of the 24 references, 11 are current and 13 are more than five years old. please update.
See "additional comments"
See "additional comments"
See "additional comments"
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The paper addresses a novel under-researched area. However, there are some questions that need to be addressed to the manuscript.
Specific comments are provided below:
TITLE
Add the type of population of your study
INTRODUCTION
Why are higher in women respect to men? Explain it. (line 48)
Please add a short introduction (2-3 phrases) before the aims where you explain the reasons of this study. (line 92)
METHODS
Include more information about the study design (i.e. longitudinal or transversal...) (line 103)
Have you include patients with chronic pain LBP or previous serious injuries in the back? (line 105-110)
Explain more about these questionnaires (line 114-115)
Can you show the reliability data of these tests? (line 153-155)
How did you calculate the body mass and height? Explain it (line 179)
Include reliability data (ICC and CV) and the stopwatch model. (line 185)
How long? Specify it. (line 196)
Were there familiarization sessions prior to testing? (line 202)
Why do not you divide by gender? It would be very interesting to observe possible differences by gender (line 214)
Include normality test. (line 214)
RESULTS
Include this information in "study participants, recruiting and inclusion criteria" In addition, add information on body composition divided by gender. (line 228)
Add more information about statistical analysis (relevant content) in “endurance holding times” and “rated perceived effort to perform tests” sections. (line 240 and 244).
DISCUSSION
Provide information about your statistical results in the discussion section (line 248)
Add the aim/s of your study in this first paragraph (line 249)
And the consequences are... (line 263)
Can you compare your results with those of other studies? (line 301-307)
This information is not relevant in a discussion section. If you want you can include it in the methods section (line 309-315)
This information is relevant in the introduction and conclusions sections. Please, change it. (line 327-338).
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.