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.
Thank you for addressing the final comment.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Can you make one final change to the manuscript that was recommended by the reviewer. Although all topics mentioned in the previous rounds of reviewing have been addressed, it is recommended to remove the (Giatsis et al. 2023) citation from L95 and to add it in L70 as follows:
"However, the kinetics of female beach volleyball players when examined across vertical jump tests executed on sand show a different trend compared to male players (Giatsis et al. 2023)." and then to change paragraph. This statement improves the rationale for the study and the selection of female participants.
Although all topics mentioned in the previous rounds of reviewing have been addressed, it is recommended to remove the (Giatsis et al. 2023) citation from L95 and to add it in L70 as follows:
"However, the kinetics of female beach volleyball players when examined across vertical jump tests executed on sand show a different trend compared to male players (Giatsis et al. 2023)." and then to change paragraph. This statement improves the rationale for the study and the selection of female participants.
No further comments
No further comments
No additional comments.
You may cite the main outcomes of https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk8030115 and https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169920 in LL94-95.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
As mentioned in the latest reply to Reviewer’s Comments: “We have conducted a thorough examination of previous studies, which have not uncovered significant differences in intra- and inter-session reliability between male and female athletes.” However, the reference to these studies is not included in the Introduction. It is suggested that this examination of the past research about the absence of the respective male vs. female differences should be inserted in L94.
Note also that the statement “In the absence of further evidence, we posit that gender does not exert a determinative influence on the output of My Jump2®” is rather speculative due to the absence of evidence. It is recommended to use the main outcomes of https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk8030115 and https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169920 in LL94-95.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
These studies are suggested to be mentioned as they could add context to the statement “to date it was not found any scientific investigation that had tested the validity and reliability of My Jump’s App to measuring jump height in sand surface” and thus the requested rationale for using female beach-volleyball players can be provided.
No further comments.
No further comments.
No further comments.
Please respond to Reviewer 1's comments.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial 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.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
The manuscript is improved compare to the initial submission; however, the quality of the manuscript could benefit from an additional english editing. In addition, only the Additional comments were replied. Thus, there are some topics that still need to be addressed.
Further elaboration is required about the rationale to conduct the research studying only female beach-volleyball players.
In the respective section, the Conclusions are well stated, but are provided in a quite abstract manner and notentirely linked to practical implications for coaches and practitioners, as in the last paragraph of the Discussion.
The authors made the changes suggested, so the paper is suitable for publication
The authors made the changes suggested, so the paper is suitable for publication
The authors made the changes suggested, so the paper is suitable for publication
Thank you very much for attending to the suggestions made. Congratulations on the article.
Several details should be clarified in the Material and Methods. In addition, further elaboration is required concerning the rationale for conducting the research studying only female beach volleyball players.
[# 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 #]
The literature is, in its majority, relevant and well referenced. The structure of the manuscript conforms to PeerJ standards and the raw data are provided. However, there are cases that the terminology used is not optimal and in some cases is not uniform throughout the text.
The rationale of the study is developed and stated sufficiently. It is stated how the research fills an identified knowledge gap. It seems that technical and ethical standards were applied. However, concerning the Materials and Methods, a number of details should be clarified. In addition, further elaboration is required concerning the rationale to conduct the research studying only female beach-volleyball players.
Conclusions are well stated, but are provided in a quite abstract manner and not entirely linked to practical implications for coaches and practitioners.
Introduction
• L33: It is recommended to split paragraph here.
• L62-64: The contents of https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk8030115 could add for the build-up of an detailed rationale for the sample and jump test selection.
** 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 **
Materials and Methods
• L71: “was extended”. Please clarify this.
• L105: Provide further information concerning the scale (manufacturer details).
• L107-109: It would be of benefit to explain the reason to conduct jumps on the pit placed over the scale.
• L124: It is suggested to rephrase this for better clarity.
• L128-129: It is proposed to clarify the method to calculate power.
• L136-149: Sand is compacted and it dissipates during the push-off phase. Thus, landing might be conducted on a lower surface than the one that the take-off was commenced. Under this circumstance, the measure of flight time to estimate jump height is problematic, as the flight phase lasts longer than it should be if the take-off and landing was performed on an even surface. This should be further discussed within the manuscript, given the fact that the App’s sampling frequency is much lower than the force-plate.
• L159: …was caused…
• L192: State the software(s) used for the statistical analyses.
Results
• Table 2: It is recommended to provide first the result and then the parenthesis, as shown in the top row..
Discussion
• See the respective comment for 136-149.
• L248-256: It is suggested to provide other limitations of the study.
References:
• L310-312: Correct to Giatsis, G., Panoutsakopoulos, V., & Kollias, I. A. (2018). Biomechanical differences of arm swing countermovement jumps on sand and rigid surface performed by elite beach volleyball players. Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(9), 997-1008.
General comments
This study makes an interesting approach to the use of technology for a proper skill and training load assessment in sports, also validating a tool in a specific surface (sand) and different in comparison to other sports (rigid surface). Few comments and suggestions are made for a better understanding and improvement.
Specific comments:
Title
I suggest removing “in sand” because this is the natural context of a beach volleyball player. Then, the procedure will explain all the study’s detail
If your goal is related also to the validity of this tool, please, add this term (and the type of validation) in the title. Or maybe the term “validity” can be deleted from the study’s aim.
Abstract
In the method, are the players or the total number of jumps the current sample?
In the information regarding the Bland-Altman plot, please indicate the unit of measurement concerning the values -4.10 and 4.74.
In conclusion, some information should be given about peak power.
Keywords
Nice
Introduction
Well-structured, with many references supporting the goal. Congratulation!
Method
Good section. My main question is about the sample. I think the number of jumps is more adequate than the number of players. The rest of this sub-section is really good.
Results
The explanation is nice, but Table 2 is not well understood. Maybe there is a problem with the format, but the data set in the “second part” (page 20) is not related to the variables properly. Please, try to change this format for a better analysis
Discussion
Line 222. Two consecutive full stops are written.
Line 222. Please, try to avoid the “personal” style (our study…). Also, in lines 248 and so on.
Line 249. What were the App recommendations? I think this could be an interesting discussion.
In the end, some limitations should be addressed (other types of jumps, etc.).
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.