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,
The paper has been revised according to the reviewers' suggestions and can be accepted in its current form.
Best regards
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The authors have revised the article according to the review comments and suggest that it should be published.
The authors have revised the article according to the review comments
no comment
no comment
The paper has improved due to reviewers comments. My suggestion is for paper acceptance..
The text was improved.
In accordance.
Dear authors,
Taking into account the comments made by the reviewers of your manuscript, we inform you that it may be accepted, however, it will require an in-depth review, in accordance with the suggestions mentioned.
Best regards
**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.
Abstract:
1.Please add the basic physiological information for study participants. 2.Please explain why natural gait walking was chosen for this study rather than other table tennis-specific footwork.
Descriptions of inclusion and exclusion criteria are adequate. Given the study design, I suggest that sampling bias needs to be included in the limitations section.
The results are clear and well presented with appropriate statistical analysis. The conclusion is conclusive. Is there any practical implication besides summarizing?
The papers present novel data regarding plantar load distribution in elite table tennis players. Mainly the methods section’ detail can be improved. Some specific comments bellow.
Abstract
- Present on the results some objective data/values.
Introduction
- L107 – include “years old”
Material and methods
L190 – present the dynamic procedure for plantar load distribution analysis. What moment of the midstance phase was considered, and how the authors confirm repeatability of the measure.
- L197 – write in the past
- L199 – write plantar loads distribution
- What was the sample frequency of the system Biomech 2019…
- The variables in study should be described.
- What is the data collected on the static and on the dynamic analysis?
- Present the rationale to analyse data base on 5 regions and 6 subregions. Also how the 6 subregions derived from the 5 regions?
- The statistical analysis do not mention how comparison between static and dynamic analysis was performed.
Results
- L234 – How it was calculated.
- L246 – The material and methods section do not present how the 6 subregions derived from the 5 regions.
Table 3
Title mentions data from 5 regions but the table mentions 6 subregions. Why the sum of the percentages is not 100?
Methods section gain with more detail.
In accordance.
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.