Review History


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.

View examples of open peer review.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on September 8th, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 15th, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on November 29th, 2023 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on December 21st, 2023.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Dec 21, 2023 · Academic Editor

Accept

The authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments and the manuscript is ready for publication.

[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

No comment

Experimental design

No comment

Validity of the findings

No comment

Additional comments

The authors did a great job in reviewing the manuscript as requested. I have no further comments. Congratulations on a very interesting study. All the best.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

no comment

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

no comment

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 15, 2023 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

The reviewers find merit in the manuscript. However, some specific points need further clarification, such as the main purpose, and more information is needed about methods and procedures to allow replication. Please, address each comment point by point and provide a detailed response.

**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Please see the pdf attached.

Experimental design

Please see the pdf attached.

Validity of the findings

Please see the pdf attached.

Additional comments

Please see the pdf attached.

Annotated reviews are not available for download in order to protect the identity of reviewers who chose to remain anonymous.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

No comment.

Experimental design

No comment.

Validity of the findings

No comment.

Additional comments

Dear authors,

Very nice paper about the obtaining more information the neuromuscular and metabolic qualities of Repeat Power Ability. Throughout the entire manuscript, there is sufficient scientific evidence that supports the claims and the findings of the authors. In this way, the authors should be congratulated for the well-written manuscript and the well-conducted research.
However, there are some specific changes and suggestions that should be made to improve the quality of the paper.

Introduction:
- Pg8Ln58 - This sentence needs a reference.
- What were the hypotheses of the study? Insert this information in the introduction section
after the objective.

Materials & Methods
Participants
- What were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants. Please include this information.

Procedures
- Was any familiarization carried out with the participants? If yes, enter this information. If no familiarization was carried out, the results obtained in the study may have been compromised, since the improvements found may be due to the fact that the participants improved their technical level in each exercise/test.
- Were the tests performed at the same time in all four sessions? Please include this information.

Coutermovement Jump
- Enter the ICC and CV percentage
- Pg12Ln168 - Enter the name of the force platform, model, country and city.

Speed
- Enter the ICC and CV percentage
- In the warm-up, how did the authors control the intensity of 70, 80 and 90% in the sprints? Enter this information.

Yoyo Intermittent Recovery Test 2
- Enter the ICC and CV percentage

Statistical Analysis
- Authors in the statistical analysis section must mention the level of significance used.
- Pg17Ln278 - Enter the name of the model, country and city of the software

Results
- Authors must place a caption in tables 1, 2 and 3 describing the meaning of the acronyms.
- The authors refer in the results to a table 4 that is not included in the annexes. Rectify this
situation.
- The authors in the annexes have a table 3 that they never refer to throughout the document.
Please rectify

Discussion
- The first paragraph of the discussion should be a reminder of the objective of the study. Please include this information.
- Pg21Ln381 - This sentence needs a reference.
- It would be interesting to place a paragraph after the limitations mentioning future lines of investigation, in order to enrich the study.

Best regards

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.