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.
Dear authors,
I am pleased to inform you that the article is now suitable for publication in PeerJ.
Congrats,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Carlo
No comment
no comment
no comment
the Authors have responded at comments of te first round revision, the article can be published on PeerJ
no comment
no comment
no comment
I commend the author for a well-structured article.
In addition to the reviewers’ comments, I have the following minor comments:
Line 53: Please, specify what ES you are using also in the abstract.
Line 54: Please, try to clarify how the heteroscedasticity was measured.
Line 81-83 and 322-324: Can you provide references regarding the superiority in terms of safety and fatiguing effect of the proposed methods compared to the classical 1-RM measurement method?
Line 93-94: I suggest the authors to rewrite this sentence in a more cautious and less affirmative way, while keeping the message of this sentence.
Line 130: Please, clarify which statistical test/indicator the 95% CIs are referring to.
Line 153-160: Please, try to make the study design clearer for the reader (e.g., specifying the number of testing days and the tests performed in each day).
Line 202: Please, clarify the reasons for choosing the absolute difference as the dependent variable. This will help the reader understand the importance of the RM-ANOVA’s results.
Line 206: Is there a reason why other indicators assessing agreement (e.g., CCC or Bland-Altman’s mean bias and LoA were not computed)? I think that including these indicators might further strengthen the results of the study.
Line 331-332: It is not clear to me the point that the authors are trying to make here, can you please clarify it?
Regards,
Carlo
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# 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. #]
no comment
1. What is the rational of excluding those with more than 300 min of exercise per week? This could be any exercise unrelated to building strength and muscle.
2. Was depth monitored and controlled? Was there specific criteria in the technique controlled in any way? I was unable to access ref 15 to know.
3. Line 177: What do you mean by “reaching that individual position”?
4. Can you provide an image of the LPT. These are accurate only in the vertical direction. With a 45°, was it set at this angle?
5. With ~ 12 sets and multiple reps/sets, justify why you suggest fatigue was not a factor especially for this population. The NSCA recommends no more than 5 sets during 1RM testing.
1. Explain why you think that MV or PV was more accurate in one model compared to the other
The study was well written and designed.
INTRODUCTION:
General comment: The english language should be more professional and formal. The authors should implement the scientific evidence about their field of research that provide the background for their hypotesis. Moreover, they should avoid their personal opinion.
(Lines 68-70) Authors should avoid personal comments or conclusion in the background, but they should use references that explain the evidence/limitations in clinical practice for the assessment of muscle strength which will support their hypotesis.
(Lines 75-77) The authors should check whether there are recent scientific references which involve 1RM assessment in breast cancer patients. Moreover, Authors should use some studies as reference that use 1RM as prescription for physical exercise in breast cancer patients and obtenined positive results
(doi: 10.3390/cancers15010034)
(Lines 81-83)The authors should not use conclusions here, but should explain what alternative approaches can be used in breast cancer patients (ref.13, 14,15). Explain if it is possible, using scientific references, why this method might be less stressful for patients (if anyone has considerd these aspects).
DISCUSSION:
(Line 294): How the perception of fatigue was valuated? to give these conclusions, did the Authors assess also the perception of fatigue during the test?
no comment
(Line 72): Please explain the abbreviation if it Is the first time that you use.
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.