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 October 3rd, 2023 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 7th, 2023.
  • The first revision was submitted on May 15th, 2024 and was reviewed by 1 reviewer and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on May 24th, 2024.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· May 24, 2024 · Academic Editor

Accept

Dear Authors,
Thank you for all the amendments. The manuscript is much better now.
Best regards

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

·

Basic reporting

Congratulations to the authors. All questions have been addressed, and no further observations are necessary

Experimental design

Congratulations to the authors. All questions have been addressed, and no further observations are necessary

Validity of the findings

Congratulations to the authors. All questions have been addressed, and no further observations are necessary

Additional comments

Congratulations to the authors. All questions have been addressed, and no further observations are necessary

Cite this review as
Download author's response letter - submitted May 15, 2024

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 7, 2023 · Academic Editor

Major Revisions

Please consider that the reviewers raised a very important issue regarding variable practice load. Unfortunately, if not addressed correctly, I will not be able to accept the manuscript, given this is the essence of your study.

You may find the following helpful:

- Raviv et al. (2022). How variability shapes learning and generalization. Trends in cognitive sciences, 26(6), 462-483.

- Williams & Hodges (2023). Effective practice and instruction: A skill acquisition framework for excellence. Journal of Sports Sciences, 1-17.

**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

See attached

Experimental design

See attached

Validity of the findings

See attached

Additional comments

See attached

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

·

Basic reporting

Attached

Experimental design

Attached

Validity of the findings

Attached

Additional comments

Attached

Cite this review as
- submitted Oct 3, 2023

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.