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.
All reviewer concerns were addressed. I confirm that the manuscript is ready for production.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I have no further comments, thank you.
I have no further comments, thank you.
I have no further comments, thank you.
I have no further comments, thank you.
The study is interesting and the manuscript has been well rewritten. The expectations of the reviewer have been met.
The method of obtaining the sample size should be written in the text.
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
Please respond to the reviews. We look forward to your revision
The study is interesting and the manuscript is well written. I have some minor comments:
- Some typos are present throughout the manuscript
- In the materials and methods - sample section, the authors report some data with commas to separate the decimals, instead of using the dot. I think this is a typo. Also, I think that simply reporting the mean+-standard deviation, instead of writing for each measure mean xxx SD yyyy is more readable.
- In general, there is no need to duplicate what is in the text also in the tables, and vice-versa, so I suggest removing Table 1, or removing the sentence in the methods and simply reporting that demographics and anthropometrics of the participants are reported in Table 1.
- As above, please check the use of the correct symbol for decimals, as commas are used also in the tables.
- I think that in the results section authors should limit the "interpretation" of the findings, such as the use of terms such as "notable", "excellent"
No comment
I think that the authors could provide some data, if present, to strengthen the validity of this device compared to other techniques to evaluate muscle stiffness, such as MRI or SWE. Indeed, it is important to understand its reliability, but it needs to be well-defined its "validity".
The authors discuss possible sex differences and cite some literature regarding Achilles tendon; it should be noted that there is already some literature about sex differences in lumbar muscles stiffness using different techniques as myoton, ultrasound or tensiomyography (Deodato et al., 2023; Rodrigues-de-Souza et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2021)
- In terms of English writing, there are many ambiguities in the text and tables.
- Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
- Professional article structure, figures, tables and raw data shared. ( (The tables design are not suitable)
- Self-contained with relevant results to aims.
- Original primary research can be within the aims and scope of the journal.
- The research question is not well defined. The necessity of doing the work or the novelty of this research is not stated. The hypothesis of this project is not clear.
- Rigorous investigation performed to technical & ethical standard.
- Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate
- All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
- Conclusions are mostly related to research objectives.
Please reply to the comments in the attached file. Also make the requested corrections.
The same terminology should be used throughout the article when referring to the "seated" and "sitting" positions.
The hypotheses are not clearly stated in the introduction.
There are errors, especially in the reference section. (Line 54, 85, 87)
On what basis were 30 cases taken in the experimental design? No sample size calculation was made. The fact that the age range covers a large range of 18-65 years makes sample size calculation necessary.
It could have been determined, in parallel with the EMG measurements, that the subjects were completely relaxed during the measurements. This situation can be seen as a shortcoming of the study.
The unit of body mass index should be specified in the findings section (Line 117).
When numerical expressions are specified in the tables, periods should be used instead of commas (Tables 3 and 4).
The first paragraph of the discussion section mentions findings in the supine position, but the article is structured on intra-rater and inter-rater myotonometeric measurements in the prone and sitting positions (Line 258, 261).
Limitations of the study were not stated.
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.