Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on December 1st, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on January 11th, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on January 16th, 2016 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on January 17th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Authors followed all the comments making the manuscript stronger and now accepted for publication.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The manuscript is interesting and well written. Please follow the suggestions by the Reviewer 1 as annotations on the manuscript PDF. Also the comments by Reviewer 2 should be addressed in particular including in the text the F and partial eta squared values.

·

Basic reporting

A few sentences present some ambiguities as they are formulated (see attached notations). All the rest about basic reporting is fine.

Experimental design

All these requirements have been satisfied.

Validity of the findings

All these requirements have been satisfied.

Comments for the author

The paper is generally well written and easy to read and understand. I must admit that the paper is original, it is a small but very interesting matter since no one has ever asked whether tools with over-sized handgrip were actually more efficient in hand-deficient subjects. It is one of those little things you always see in front of you but you have bever asked why it is like that. So...it's a smart paper.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

Methods should be described with sufficient information to be reproducible by another investigator.
There are not informations about the reliability of the measures
No randomization was done for each conditions
The tool used have a poor accuracy for this investigation, are necessary 0.01 degrees in fact the Coefficient of Variation is very higher to discriminate the different conditions

Validity of the findings

The data should be robust, statistically sound, and controlled.
There are not information's about:
- the sample power estimation
- the level of the significant
- the Anova (univariate or repeated of the measures)
- Fisher value
- Partial eta square
- the Coefficient of Variation was higher (Variable)
TABLE 1 (MCP 52<88% - IP 25.8<41.1%),
TABLE 2 (MCP 14<29% - IP 7<15% - DIP 18<19%)
TABLE 3 (MCP 11<23% - IP 9<52% - DIP 14<19%)
TABLE 4 (MCP 15<35% - IP 5<13% - DIP 15<17%)
TABLE 5 (MCP 25<51% - IP 8<21% - DIP 15<31%)

The authors should clarify the reason of this variability of the data

Comments for the author

This article showed a interesting scenario, but there are some points to overcome.

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.