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 Author: it is a pleasure to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication.
Congratulations
Dr. Manuel Jiménez
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear Authors:
Thank you for thinking of PeerJ to submit your manuscript. Some improvements must be made to be considered. Please attend to the reviewers´ comments.
Regards.
Dr. Manuel Jiménez
**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.
BASIC REPORTING:
• The study topic is interesting and innovative, however, if the writers make use of sub headings to simplify it and more reader – friendly. Moreover, blood samples are taken before and after exercise only. No mention of changes during the course of exercise? My suggestion is that by combining assessments before, during and after exercise, a comprehensive picture will emerge which will aid in tailoring training programs, identifying areas for improvement and gauging overall health and performance adaptations.
• Line 29-30: mentions that there were no significant exercise-induced differences in red blood cells parameters between athletic groups. Later on the statement is different in conclusion. Please clarify this confusion.
Moreover, what is the difference between red blood cells parameters and hematological parameters?
• Sports terminologies need to be clarified, for example, endurance and mixed-trained athletes (Line 71 – 72), competitive athletes of different specialties (Line 120), Triathletes (Line 193) etc
• Why female gender is being excluded? (A limitation mentioned by authors – Line 359)
• Why goal keepers were excluded?
• Line 135: Improve the sentence (use of two negative?)
• No issues found, ANOVA statistical method to analyze the differences among different groups is justified in my opinion.
• No issues found at a glance. However, cross-validation using different data sources may be used to see if results remain consistent. This will ensure that findings are not dependant on a specific data set approach
• Seek input from Sports personalities, e.g. Physiotherapists, to get diverse perspectives and insights
• Conduct longitudinal studies and followup, if possible.
• Clinical implications for this study is not mentioned esp. in the Conclusion. For example, Hb levels rise to enhance oxygen carrying capacity of blood to meet the increased demand for oxygen transport during exercise contributing to improved aerobic performance
General considerations:
It is important to carry out a general review of the text regarding wording and verbal adequacy.
The text is relatively clear and sufficient for the reader to understand.
As for the individuals studied, they have different physical profiles and different sports, which can influence the results and cause bias in the analyses. With this division, the number of athletes in each group is small and can influence the statistical analysis.
As for plasma volume, hydration control is important and was not considered, as well as sweating during physical activity, which is different individually due to hormonal issues and exercise intensity.
I believe that the time between analyzes was small for the physiological response.
For this theme is important responde:
As for the individuals studied, they have different physical profiles and different sports, which can influence the results and cause bias in the analyses. With this division, the number of athletes in each group is small and can influence the statistical analysis.
As for plasma volume, hydration control is important and was not considered, as well as sweating during physical activity, which is different individually due to hormonal issues and exercise intensity.
I believe that the time between analyzes was small for the physiological response.
It is important to review the topics highlighted above and explain the interferences in the analyses.
The article is interesting and important for exercise physiology. However, it is necessary to clarify the highlighted points to avoid interpretative bias.
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.