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 Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I think that the manuscript is well corrected and now is suitable for publication.
This part is well corrected
This part is well corrected
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
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) #]
- The authors need to work with a fluent English speaker/writer to correct grammatical and punctuation errors throughout the manuscript.
- Title of paper need to be reformulated
Abstract
- The aim of the study is not clear
- Conclusion need to be reorganized
Introduction
- L42-L43 : Add reference
- L44-L47: This paragraph is not clear
- L52-L56: Reformulate this paragraph
- The importance of Autoregulatory progressive resistance exercise (APRE) must be more clear.
- The problematic is not clear
- Why you choose participants from both genders? It can affect results or not ?
- Thanks to add the period of the season
Results
- Figure 1 not very clear.
Discussion
- L176-L179: This paragraph is not clear
- L200-L202: Add reference
- L205-L208: Reformulate this paragraph
- Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias
- Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results
- Discuss the practical implications and future research
The article is written in good and understandable English language.
the experimental design is coherent with the aim of the research.
The authors improved this section.
The authors have improved their manuscript according to the given suggestions.
The authors answered all of my comments, and they made appropriate changes in the manuscript. Therefore I recommend this manuscript be published,
The authors answered all of my comments, and they made appropriate changes in the manuscript. Therefore I recommend this manuscript be published,
The authors answered all of my comments, and they made appropriate changes in the manuscript. Therefore I recommend this manuscript be published,
The authors answered all of my comments, and they made appropriate changes in the manuscript. Therefore I recommend this manuscript be published,
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) #]
I would thanks the authors for the effort and for the best quality of the manuscript. However, there is some mistakes to correct them.
General comments:
- The authors need to work with a fluent English speaker/writer to correct grammatical and punctuation errors throughout the manuscript.
Abstract
- The aim of the study is not clear
- Add the materials used in this part
- Conclusion need to be reformulated.
Introduction
- L37- L40: This part is not clear
- L44- L46: Add reference
- L48- L50: Add reference
- L48- L54: There’s no consistency between paragraphs
- The problematic is not clear
Methods
- Experimental approach need to be more clear for the reader
- Why you choose participants of both sexes
- I think that the number of participants is small
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria need to be more clearer
Results
- Please improve the image quality of figure1
Discussion
- L160-L163: Add reference
- L164-L168: This paragraph is not clear
- L169-L176: This result is not well discussed
- Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias
- Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results
- Discuss the practical implications and future research
Conclusions
- Thanks to reformulate conclusions part
The article is written in good and understandable English language. I do have a single critique since I have noticed that there are some acronyms, which are missing their extensive form the first time they appear: lines 48, 120.
In addition, I suppose there is a typo at line 115.
The experimental design and protocol are well-defined and seem coherent with the research question.
However, I would suggest changing the spot of the males/females count since it does not belong to its current position: the sentence at line 74 starts as "twenty-one subjects.." while the sum of males/females count in parenthesis is 18. Therefore, you could rephrase the sentence and maybe move the parenthesis to a spot where you describe the number of participants left.
Ranganathan et al., (Perspect Clin Res. 2016 Apr-Jun;7(2):106-7. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.179436.) have described the problems of multiple statistical testing and why it should be avoided. In lines 129-131, you describe the different tests you used to compare the groups. However, no direct comparisons between groups were performed in the statistical analysis. You performed different t-tests to compare groups at baseline and to compare pre- vs. post-training outcomes in the same group, while you should perform the ANOVA statistics (+ post-hoc tests) instead.
Moreover, it is still unclear how you compared groups. In addition, you did not describe g-value at line 141.
Using Cohen's d to compare different interventions is not a valid and reliable way to determine whether one intervention is better than the other, and it cannot substitute a direct statistical comparison performed with an ANOVA.
The paper approaches an interesting theme and has been well-written and well-organized. The introduction brings an explanation of basic concepts and the literature concerning the study question.
I suggest removing the randomized controlled trial from the title, considering that the study does not have a control group.
I suggest writing the discussion mainly from the second paragraph where the authors bring the concepts well written but do not relate these concepts with the findings of the study. As well as describing more clearly the cited studies presenting results and comparing with the findings in the present study
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.