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 Author,
Congratulations, after the good work of revisions in response to the reviewers' comments, I would like to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication in PeerJ.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jeremy Loenneke, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
Dear authors,
Manuscript titled "Effects of Exercise on Glycolipid Metabolism in Adolescents with overweight and obesity: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials" that you submitted to PeerJ has been reviewed.
The reviewer(s) have suggested that some important points must be clarified and have requested substantial changes to be made in the manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. The reviewer(s) comments are included at the end of this letter.
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.
**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
No comment
No comment
No comment
See attached PDF
This research finds out the most suitable exercise to improve the glycolipid metabolism of adolescents with overweight and obese. The finding is meaningful and can provide valuable guidance for practicing. However, some problems need to be discussed in this article. Firstly, there is a possibility that some of the included studies originate from the same experiment, which may introduce bias in the results. Besides, the language should be improved a lot and the grammar should be more clear and professional.
no comment
Some repeat data were included, which could introduce bias in the results.
This research uses the method of system review and meta-analysis to find out the most suitable exercise to improve the glycolipid metabolism of adolescents with overweight and obese. The finding is meaningful and can provide valuable practice guidance.
However, some problems need to be discussed in this article. Firstly, there is a possibility that some of the included studies originate from the same experiment, which may introduce bias into the results. Besides, the language should be improved a lot and the grammar should be more clear and professional. What’s more, the conclusion of the abstract should give more specific suggestions about the intensity, kind, and frequency of exercise. Furthermore, I have outlined detailed points for consideration below.
1 The language of this article should be strict and intelligible.
1) The sentences in lines 45–47 and lines 55–58 are identical. Please carefully check the writing for compliance with academic norms.
2) The technical terms should be interpreted when the term occurs for the first time(line 71:the definition of obesity).
3) Line 192:I2 should be I2.Line 141: kg/m2 should be kg/m2. Please check for similar errors.
4) Line 223: maybe ‘dropout’ or ‘withdrawal’ is better than ‘exfoliation’. Exfoliation is commonly referred to as skin shedding in the medical field. Please check for similar errors.
5) Line 227-238: Use clearer logical connectors (such as "however," "there," "in addition") to organize sentences.
6) Please use abbreviations for exercise methods after their first appearance.
7) Commonly used academic nouns in articles should use abbreviations after each occurrence. There are many such errors in the article. Please check.
8) Many places with capitalization errors in the first letter(eg, line 381). Please check.
9) Line 395-399: wrong inference style and location. Please check for similar errors.
10) Line 440: The abbreviation of SUCRA was unclear. Please check.
11) Line 457-458: There are some grammar and expression issues. There are many similar issues in this article. Please check carefully.
2 The data in this research isn’t rigorous enough.
1) Please explain that the inconsistency of the result of database searching (2776) isn’t equal to the sum of six databases (3277) displayed in figure1.
2) According to your search strategy, I couldn’t find the same number of results.(eg, wos:1016. Pubmed:807)
3) The results of Zehsaz (2016) and Zehsaz (2017) might be from the same experiment. Repeat data could make your result have bias. If you revise them, your results will have some differences. So please check for other similar issues carefully.
3 Provide clear interpretation of the key terms.
1) Line 145-146: Please clearly define the exercise words and list their references. Then, you can use their abbreviations in your article. What’s more, please interpret the difference between combined exercise and hybrid-type exercise.
4 The opinions should be producted by your results or other researches. Don’t let opinions arise without foundation.
1)Line 470: Please provide the interference for the opinion and check for similar errors.
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.