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.
Your manuscript has been accepted for publication. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The manuscript has been significantly improved.
The experimental design meets the requirements of the journal.
The manuscript is significant for readers.
The manuscript has been significantly improved. I think it should be published.
Clear and professional English has been used. Background with sufficient and relevant content has been provided. Professional structure. figures and tables have been presented.
The research questions are well-defined and relevant. Rigorous investigations have been performed.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, and controlled. Conclusions have been well stated, and linked to the original research question.
The authors revised all suggested comments.
Dear Authors,
The reviewers and I have completed our evaluation of your manuscript and recommend a major revision before re-submission.
Please review the comments and resubmit your revised manuscript.
[# 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. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
Writing should be more straightforward and more accessible for a reader to understand. There needs to be more academic style of writing. An English language expert should be consulted to improve the manuscript related to these points.
Statistical analysis – Please mind that statement is incorrect when reporting both significance levels (p<0.05 and p<0.01) as the first value to be insignificant and the second to be significant, respectively. This is an error. The level of significance is determined as only one p-value. Therefore, authors should determine this value and re-run the analysis according to either p<0.05 or p<0.01.
Conclusion – In this part, the clear take-home message and the main results should be presented, keeping the conclusion simple and clear enough.
Ln50 "lower limb leg" – Please check if this is correctly written and rephrase if needed.
Ln58 "Tai Chi is" - The sentence starts identically as the previous one. Please consider rephrasing it.
Ln66,67 "strong leg strength" – What is the meaning of this? Please recheck this statement.
Ln71,72 “both at home and abroad” - What is meant by abroad here? The point is not clear. Please rephrase this sentence.
Ln88 “participants. the” - Upper case letter is used when starting a new sentence.
Ln91-93 - Please consider rephrasing this sentence.
Ln94 “although there are” - despite the.
Ln97 - "Participants" subsection should start with this sentence... Please correct accordingly.
Ln100,101 “The inclusion criteria for the amateur group were enthusiasts who had practiced Tai Chi for more than 1 year, and 8 students from Beijing…” - This is unclear. Please, rephrase this accordingly.
Ln102 “after investigation” - After what investigation precisely?
Ln201,202 – “with P < 0.05 indicating a difference and P < 0.01 indicating a significant difference and statistical significance.” - This seems to be confusing and unclear. Statistical significance is set either at p<0.05 or p<0.01, not both. Please correct this statement.
Ln207 “AB/AD” - What is the meaning of this abbreviation? Write it in the bracket, please.
Ln262 “FL/EX” - The meaning of this abbreviation is missing.
Ln265 “abduction/adduction” - Please use either abbreviation, as you used earlier in the text.
Ln311 "the professional balance leg group." – What is meant by this? Recheck the entire sentence and rewrite it if needed.
Ln341 “completed” – performed?
Ln346 “exercise can effectively exercise the muscles around” - Please rephrase this part of the sentence.
Ln374 “is larger“ - Larger compared to what? Please rewrite the sentence in a way it makes sense and improves the readability.
Ln382 "We" – We? Please recheck the statement's grammar and meaning (point) and rephrase.
Dear Authors,
thank you for submitting the manuscript "Analysis of technical characteristics of typical lower limb
balance movements in Tai Chi: a cross-sectional study based on AnyBody bone muscle modelling". In my opinion, it is fascinating and well-written. The English used is clear and unambiguous, and sufficient and relevant background has been provided. Also, the article's structure appeared professional, with relevant results to hypotheses. Basically, I'd just suggest you synthesise your abstract, especially in results.
The research questions are well-defined, relevant and meaningful. Rigorous investigations have been performed to high technical and ethical standards. Methods have been described correctly. Although the authors have clearly stated that the sample size is a limitation and why it happened (lines 91-95), I'd suggest you estimate the statistical power achieved with your study design characteristics. This is my only minor suggestion related to your methods.
The findings are well-debated and compared with previous results. All underlying data have been provided and appeared controlled and robust. Just a suggestion on the statistical power has been provided above. The conclusions are well stated, linked to the original research question and limited to supporting results.
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.