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.
The reviewer 2 was satisfied with your new version of the manuscript.
I agree with the reviewer and congratulate the authors on reaching the quality requested by PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
The authors improved the manuscript and performed all corrections necessary.
Dear authors,
Although one of the reviewers has approved your manuscript, I concur with Reviewer 2, who has requested some improvements. I would like to emphasize that the requested improvements are still based on the initial evaluation, which, in the reviewer's opinion, was not fully addressed.
Thank you,
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
No additional requests
No additional requests
No additional requests
My considerations have been addressed by the authors.
The authors improved the paper and responded some suggestions and questions addressed. Some issues still need to be further clarified by the authors
For some variables authors found a significant difference for t-test. What does this difference mean? As a suggestion, authors are encouraged to use this result in association with correlation analyses. What would be the difference or technical error between the measurements? Moreover, in the Bland Ataman graph, it is possible to see the limits of agreement between the methods. In general, they follow literature data or have better agreement.
In the conclusion, authors are encouraged to include the average or technical error between the two measurements and not just state that there is a high correlation. As the use of a 240 Hz camera can influence the result, this highlight may be relevant for conclusion.
As previously suggested: It is suggested that authors include an image of the standardization of equipment and position of the iPhone to better visualize the experimental session. Please describe how the jumps were recorded with the iPhone: was a tripod used? what distance? lighting?
As previously suggested: It is suggested that authors include technical error of measurement for minimal difference that could be accepted as a difference. This is an important point, because some significant differences were found. Authors need to explain it.
As previously suggested: Table 1 and 2: please check correct of display Cm (cm), Kg (kg) and Ms (ms). Initial letter of each measure in capital letters.
C is used for Celsius (temperature) and K is used for Kelvin (temperature)
c and k (lower case) are use for 10-2 and 103
For example: 1 km = 1000 m or 1cm = 0,01 m
No comment
Validity of the findings issues are addressed in 'Basic reporting'
No comment
Dear Authors,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to you in my capacity as the editor of PeerJ, regarding the manuscript you submitted, titled "The study on reliability and validity of countermovement jump free arm and interlimb jump symmetry in different groups of professional athletes based on "My Jump 2" application".
After a thorough evaluation process, your manuscript has been reviewed by two experts in the field. Based on the feedback received from the reviewers, we have concluded that your manuscript holds potential interest for our readership but requires significant revisions before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, we are inviting you to resubmit your manuscript after making major revisions according to the reviewers' comments and suggestions.
The reviewers have provided detailed feedback aimed at enhancing the clarity, depth, and significance of your research findings. Some of the key areas highlighted for improvement include clarifications about methodological choices and improvements on readability. I particularly agree with the reviewers and, despite the potential for publication, the manuscript still needs to be improved to reach our quality standards.
Please find attached the reviewers' reports, which outline specific areas of concern and recommendations for enhancement. We strongly encourage you to address all the points raised and to consider the reviewers' feedback carefully in revising your manuscript.
**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.
The manuscript is written in professional English and uses appropriate terminology in the field, maintaining clarity and cohesion throughout the text.
It refers to relevant studies in the field and provides adequate context on the importance of assessing jumping ability in athletes, as well as on the limitations of traditional measurement methods.
Iti clearly establishes the basis for the study, discussing the importance of assessing jumping ability in athletes and highlighting the need for more accessible and effective measurement methods.
Introduction
The study on reliability and validity of countermovement jump free arm and interlimb jump symmetry in different groups of professional athletes based on "My Jump 2" application (#97252)
Major revision: Introduction
Jumping ability plays a crucial role in athletic performance, serving as an indicator of athletes' overall physical condition and their risk of lower limb injuries. Despite its importance, there is a lack of clarity regarding the reliability and validity of certain jump tests, such as the Countermovement Jump Free Arm (CMJAM) and assessments of interlimb jump symmetry, especially across diverse groups of professional athletes. This study aims to address this gap by evaluating the reliability and validity of these jump tests using the "My Jump 2" application in various groups of professional athletes, including fencers, swimmers, and divers. By investigating the efficacy of the application in assessing vertical jumping ability and interlimb symmetry in these athletes, we seek to provide valuable insights for enhancing athletic performance evaluation across different sporting disciplines.
Methods
Line 61: The current study included a relatively small sample of athletes with training experience: This phrase lacks connection with the rest of the text and needs clarification.
Lines 94 to 96: To be clearer regarding the hypothesis and to express it after the objective.
The introduction discusses the importance of jump measures and the significance of asymmetry indicators for injury prevention but lacks a thorough review of the Countermovement Jump Free Arm (CMJAM) test and the Asymmetry test in the studied population. Although the use of My Jump 2 was well-founded, relating potential measures with these two tests would be beneficial.
Line 101 to 108: The topic "Experimental Approach to the Problem" is redundant, as the information is contained in the sections below. This item may simply explain the type of study being conducted (observational, etc.).
From lines 111 to 113, the count does not match the result of 29 athletes, needing revision.
Table 1: Are there minors in the study? Is this information correct? Why did you group swimming and diving and separate them by gender? This table could go into the results with statistics demonstrating if there is a difference in age, weight, height, and training time between the modalities.
Lines 116 to 118: If there are minors, it needs to be clarified how they were informed about the study and authorized to participate.
Lines 133 to 136 are confusing: 30cm DJ (Drop Jump)? Motion analysis and data processing are proceeded by Kistler's MARS software? Were the cell phone data processed by the platform's software? Recorded on iPhone 13 ProMax for editing? How and in which software?
Lines 144 to 146 should be in the equipment specifications and not in the procedures.
From lines 147 to 156: The authors explain the lower limb symmetry test very well, but not the CMJAM.
Line 160: Were there any previous tests for familiarization or just videos?
Line 161: Why did the fencers complete three CMJAM tests followed by three lower limb symmetry tests, and the swimmers and divers participated in only three CMJAM tests?
Line 165: All the tests ended on September 22nd, 2022, and the data were taken a week after the test (Sep.29th, 2022)? Were the records not made at the time of the jump, on the 22nd? What data was collected a week later?
Line 177 is confusing, this part of the statistics refers only to the CMJAM test, with 29 subjects who jumped three times. What do the numbers 79 and 237 represent?
Results
Figure 1: The legend needs clarification regarding numbers 1 to 6.
There is no need to stratify the tables so much. I suggest combining tables 2 and 3 into one; 4 and 5 into one; 6 and 7 into one. It makes the article very long. Likewise, the description of the results is redundant, repeating all the r and p values is unnecessary, for example: it would be enough to indicate that all variables of the jump against the movement had high correlation (Fig 1 A1-3), simplify and reduce the text. The same applies to the results of the asymmetry tests.
Discussion
The CMJ abbreviation appears for the first time in line 159 and was not explained.
In line 263, there is a wrong reference.
The authors use the structure of indicating the value of their findings, then citing others found in the literature, and if they do not corroborate, they try to explain. However, it is suggested that the description of the values found in the literature be summarized. Instead of citing several examples of authors and the values found by each of them, it could be indicated the variation in the literature (from X to Y) and how much this differs from the values found by the authors. This way, the discussion would be cleaner and more enjoyable.
Lines 368 to 373 are not part of the conclusion; they could be added at the end of the discussion as future perspectives.
Dear Authors,
The paper ‘The study on reliability and validity of countermovement jump free arm and interlimb jump symmetry in different groups of professional athletes based on "My Jump 2" application’ presents an interesting question about new and practical approach to evaluated CMJ with one APP.
The work has an interesting objective, but the authors need to improve some description in detail.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
Tille
The title is generic and could be more specific and reflect the main results found in the study.
Suggestion:
Reliability and validity of "My Jump 2" application for countermovement jump free arm and interlimb jump symmetry in professional athletes.
Abstract and text:
It is necessary to define abbreviation of terms when first time appearances in text. For example: In Abstract: Background/Purpose - were not define the abbreviation of CMJ and CMJAM at first appearances. But in Methods CMJAM was defined. (It is suggested to verify that in entire paper)
Key words: Consider include different words of title.
It is necessary to standardize the term used to describe the shape platform throughout the work (dynamometer vs Kistler platform)
INTRODUCTION
At lines 50-51 authors include a relation between incorrect jumping posture and risk of injury. But entire paper analyses only jump ability for jumping performance and symmetry. There is any relation between analysis performed and jumping posture?
At lines 57-58 authors describe relation between limbs asymmetry with injuries. But it is suggested that authors elucidated why limbs asymmetry can predisposes injuries in non-dominant limb.
At lines 72-73 authors describe that “Based on the above problems, further search for simpler, more accurate and reliable assessment methods is urgently needed.” However, we have some alternatives already exist (including the APP tested at work). It may be necessary to clarify that it is necessary to validate and test the applicability of accessible and practical alternatives for evaluating jumps. Or we do not have any other practical alternative for jump evaluation?
METHODS
At lines 102-105 authors describe experimental approach, however it is necessary to include some aspects:
What times were used for investigated performance? For the authors, could the time of day influence jump performance?
What did the participants do between moments?
Was it allowed to carry out any physical activity?
Was the warm-up carried out before each session?
What were the environmental conditions of the place where the study was carried out?
How many jumps were performed in each session?
At lines 137-141: Familiarization with jumps: it is suggested that authors include a description of the familiarization sessions carried out with study participants.
It is suggested that authors include an image of the standardization of equipment and position of the iPhone to better visualize the experimental session.
Statistical analysis
It is suggested that authors include technical error of measurement for minimal difference that could be accepted as a difference.
RESULTS
At line 224 – please check ‘-1’ later ICC value (two times)
Table 1: please check correct of display Cm (cm), Kg (kg). Initial letter of each measure in capital letters
Table 2: authors found some differences and trend towards difference (p<0.10) between Dynamometer and My jump 2 app. How can these results influence the validity and application of the My Jump 2 application?
Table 4 and 5: ICC and 95% CI were not display at table.
All figures are in very low resolution and need it better.
DISCUSSION
Actors are encouraged to reduce speculation about injury risk (not assessed) and focus on comparisons between the methods investigated.
How can the difference in the characteristics of the camera used influence validity?
Can the use of other iPhone models limit the use of the APP?
What would be the best detectable difference as a real difference in the measurements investigated?
CONCLUSION
At lines 368-369 authors describe that: “Users without video experience analysis experience have very little difference in jump height measurements when using the My Jump 2 app”. However, it is the fist time that is papers in paper.
Was this measured? How can this experience influence you? This issue needs to be included in the discussion.
Please, check Experimental design comments.
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.