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 authors have addressed all of the reviewers' comments. The manuscript is ready for publication.
[# 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.
No comment.
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment
No comment.
No comment
No comment.
The authors addressed some of the previously mentioned issues. In the revised manuscript submitted, the conclusion section should primarily focus on the core findings, theoretical contributions, and practical implications of the research, while avoiding an excessive accumulation of specific statistical figures (such as P-values, effect sizes).
We would like to thank the authors for their effort and dedication in revising this manuscript. However, there are a few issues that still need to be corrected.
• The word "sensitivity" still appears frequently, particularly in the results section and their titles. Please replace it in all occurrences using an automatic replacement tool like Microsoft Word.
• The references are not formatted consistently. Please ensure all references follow a uniform format according to journal guidelines.
• The numbering of subtitles in the Methods and Materials section is incorrect, especially in the test selection subsection, where authors use "2-5-2" followed by "2-6-3." Similarly, "Statistical Analysis" is numbered as "2-7," but it should be "2-6."
• In the Participants section, authors mention the use of SPSS, t-tests, and data distribution analysis. This belongs in the Statistical Analysis section, not in Participants.
• The research hypothesis is currently placed after the Participants section. This should be moved to the end of the Introduction or another suitable section.
• The authors stated that the two tests described, the 15s Repeated Challenge Arena Jump and the Fist-Leg Combination Cohesion Test, were used in previous research. However, they do not provide references or citations for these tests. If these tests are novel, the authors must provide validity and reliability values from relevant studies. Moreover, these studies should be published in peer-reviewed journals. If no such studies exist, the authors need to conduct reliability and validity assessments for these tests.
• Other tests also lack references. The authors should specify the sources of these tests and provide proper citations.
• The Statistical Analysis section is not well explained. It is unclear which type of ANOVA was used (e.g., one-way or two-way). Additionally, the manuscript does not fully describe the statistical methods used:
o An independent t-test was used for pre-test comparisons between groups.
o A paired t-test was used for pre-post test comparisons within each group.
o ANOVA effect size values should include reference values, e.g., small (0.01), moderate (0.06), and large (0.14).
• The validity of the findings relies on the tests used. The authors need to provide clarifications, as mentioned earlier, regarding the tests employed in the study.
RESULTS
• The Results section still needs revision as it is too long. Please summarize all results sub-sections to enhance clarity and conciseness. Avoid redundant details and repetition. For example, instead of writing: "In the fourth-week test, there was a significant difference between the experimental group and the control group (P < 0.001)." You can clarify and condense it by stating: "In the fourth week, the experimental group showed a significant improvement compared to the control group (P < 0.001)." Ensure that all statistical comparisons clearly indicate which group showed greater improvement.
TABLES
• In Table 1, change "Training duration" to "Training experience."
The manuscript needs some major revisions before acceptance.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript with the title - Experimental Study on the Impact of SAQ Training Method on the Agility Quality of Collegiate Sanda Specialty Students
The study is interesting and addresses a topical issue.
Recommendations for improving the content of the manuscript:
To correct the titles of the sections and subsections – they are written in small letters.
Introduction:
• To detail more specifically the novel aspects of the present study in relation to previous studies on the same topic.
Materials and Methods:
• To reformulate the hypothesis of the study.
• Participants – to add the inclusion criteria in the study.
• Study design - To detail the periodization of the study: year, testing periods, etc.
Results – under the tables to add explanations for the acronyms included in the tables
Discussions:
- To add at the end of the Discussions - the practical implications of the study based on the relevant results.
Conclusions
- We recommend expanding the conclusions with 2-3 relevant ideas based on the relevant results identified in the study. Future research directions in accordance with the topic of the study should be mentioned.
No
The article demonstrates potential but falls short in several key areas to meet the basic reporting requirements for a professional journal article:
The manuscript exhibits some grammatical errors, repetitive phrasing, and non-standard expressions, which hinder clarity and professionalism. Examples include the use of "sensitive quality" instead of the more precise "agility performance." Significant editing is required to improve language quality and align with international academic standards.
While the manuscript cites several relevant studies, it lacks proper referencing in the introduction and fails to provide sufficient context regarding the theoretical mechanisms of SAQ training. Overemphasis on SAQ training in ball sports, with limited focus on its applicability to Sanda, weakens the connection to the study’s objectives.
The article doesn't follow a standard structure, and it is burdened with excessive tables (34 in total), many of which are redundant or unnecessary. Figures and tables are not well integrated into the text, and inconsistencies in formatting reduce the paper's professionalism.
The manuscript presents results relevant to its hypotheses but is overly verbose and lacks concise interpretation. Sections such as expert interviews and Delphi methods detract from the study’s primary focus on evaluating SAQ training effectiveness.
The experimental design partially meets the journal’s standards. While the study is relevant and addresses a meaningful question, methodological clarity and focus need improvement. Removing irrelevant methods, providing more details on core experimental procedures, and addressing limitations like small sample size would strengthen the study’s rigor and replicability.
The findings have potential but are limited by methodological weaknesses and incomplete justification of their broader significance. To enhance validity, the authors should provide clearer rationale for replication, acknowledge the limitations of their data, and refine their conclusions to align strictly with the supporting evidence.
The study demonstrates novelty by applying SAQ training to Sanda, an underexplored area. However, its broader impact and contribution to the field are not sufficiently assessed or discussed.
The rationale for replicating SAQ training results in Sanda is implied but not explicitly justified, limiting its value to the literature.
The data are presented in detail, but the statistical analyses, while appropriate, are undermined by the small sample size (n=24), reducing the reliability and generalizability of the results.
Control measures are present (e.g., a randomized design with a control group), but the inclusion/exclusion criteria and randomization process are not well-documented.
Overall, the language in this article shows a certain level of professionalism, but there are still deficiencies in academic rigor, clarity of expression, and overall consistency.
The manuscript contains several grammatical errors and non-standard expressions, which require attention to improve professionalism and clarity. For example, "sensitive quality" should be changed to "agility performance" or "agility attributes" to avoid unnecessary ambiguity.
Some sentences are overly long and repetitive, affecting readability. For instance, “This study focuses on the sanda specialty students at Henan Normal University, specifically investigating the effects of SAQ training on the agility qualities of collegiate sanda athletes.” can be simplified to: “This study investigates the effects of SAQ training on the agility of collegiate sanda athletes at Henan Normal University.”
Recommendation: Use professional language editing tools to polish the entire text, optimize grammar errors and sentence structures. Ensure that the translation of terms complies with international standards and reduce "Chinglish" expressions.
Abstract
Some sentences are overly long and cumbersome. For example: “This study focuses on the sanda specialty students at Henan Normal University, specifically investigating the effects of SAQ training on the agility qualities of collegiate sanda athletes.” can be simplified to: “This study investigates the effects of SAQ training on the agility of collegiate sanda athletes at Henan Normal University.” It is recommended to reduce repetitive expressions and avoid complex sentence patterns.
The academic terms are not precise enough: terms like "agility qualities" can be more accurate. It is recommended to change it to "agility performance" or "agility attributes".
The selection of keywords is basically reasonable, but "Sanda" and "Sanda Specialty Students" can be combined into one keyword, such as "Sanda (Specialty Students)", to make the keywords more concise and avoid repetition.
Introduction
The introduction clearly explains the research background, especially the importance of Sanda agility in actual combat and the application of the SAQ training method in other sports. It clearly points out the innovation of the research. However, the theoretical basis of the SAQ training is expounded rather superficially, lacking in-depth analysis of its mechanism of action. For example, why the SAQ training can significantly improve agility still needs more explicit theoretical support. The background content repeatedly mentions "the application of the SAQ training method in ball sports", which appears lengthy. When mentioning the application of the SAQ training in other ball sports, a brief introduction to the specific mechanism or successful cases (references) of improving agility in ball sports can be provided to better provide analogies and theoretical support for its application in Sanda training and enhance the logicality and coherence of the introduction. There are no references in the entire introduction, which is inappropriate. When citing references, the annotation of some references is not accurate enough. For example, when mentioning relevant research viewpoints in the text, the corresponding reference serial numbers should be clearly indicated for readers to consult and verify. Recommendation: Refine the background description, reduce repetitive content, and allocate more space to analyze the applicability of the SAQ training to Sanda. Increase a detailed explanation of the SAQ training mechanism and an analysis of its combination with the technical characteristics of Sanda.
Methods and Materials
The research topic of the paper focuses on "The Impact of the SAQ Training Method on the Agility Quality of Collegiate Sanda Specialty Students", and the research purpose is clearly to analyze the improvement of the agility quality of Sanda students through the SAQ training by experiments. However, the research methods section introduces contents such as "Literature method", "Delphi method" and "Expert Group", which take up a large amount of space but do not directly serve the core experimental research, and may cause confusion for readers about the research focus. For example, the paper uses the Delphi method to invite experts to select agility test indicators. This method is usually used to construct an index system or preliminarily screen indicators, but the core purpose of the paper is to evaluate the effect of the SAQ training, not to develop new agility test indicators. For agility training research, there are already many recognized test indicators (such as the Illinois Agility Test, the Compass Pointer Test, etc.), and the paper has also actually applied these standard tests. Therefore, the part using the Delphi method appears redundant and disconnected from the core research purpose.
This is a journal paper, not a graduation thesis, and the main research content should be presented reasonably. Therefore, it is recommended that:
It is recommended to delete the relevant contents of "Literature method" and "Delphi method" (2.1, 2.2), as well as the statistical analysis related to the expert group (such as the calculation of the expert scoring table and the coordination coefficient). If it is necessary to mention the literature support or the process of test indicator selection, it can be briefly explained in the introduction section without detailed elaboration in the methods section.
Focus on experimental research: The methods section should be more closely centered around the experimental design, including sample selection (inclusion and exclusion criteria), sample size calculation, experimental intervention (SAQ training and traditional training), agility test indicators, and statistical analysis. Retain the content directly related to the experiment, such as the specific operation steps of the test indicators (such as the description of the Illinois Agility Test) and the intervention protocol.
In the experimental object part, only the selection of experimental objects according to the physical conditions of students is mentioned, but the specific selection criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria) are not detailed, which may affect the reproducibility and extrapolation of the experimental results. Clear selection criteria should be supplemented, such as the specific range of physical fitness indicators.
Delete unimportant or repetitive descriptions, such as 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.4;
2.3 Mathematical Statistics should be written as "Statistical Analysis" or "Analysis of Experimental Data", and should be placed at the end of the "Methods and Materials" section.
The descriptions in "2.5 Experimental Scheme" and "2.6 Test index selection and test method" should be more concise and should not be repetitive with the previous content. It is recommended that the "Control group training plan" and "Training plan of experimental group" be described in words instead of tables to reduce the use of tables in the article. In addition, the expressions of "Figure" and "Figs" in this part should be unified.
Results
The title should be "Results" instead of "results and analysis", and the first letter should be capitalized. It is recommended to delete the results in "3.1, 3.2".
The description in the results part is too long. For a journal paper, the summary of each part of the results is not necessary. It is recommended to re-organize the hierarchy of the results part.
There is no corresponding result description in "3.4.1".
Results -Tables
There are too many tables in the article, from Table 1 - 1 to Table 9 - 7, totaling 34 tables, which is unreasonable for a paper. It is recommended to adjust the structure of the paper and delete unnecessary content. Centering around "Experimental Study on the Impact of SAQ Training Method on the Agility Quality of Collegiate Sanda Specialty Students", some unnecessary results such as expert interviews and verifications are not the core content of this paper.
Discussion
The first paragraph of the discussion should point out the main findings of this study.
The discussion part focuses more on the summary of the results and literature comparison, but lacks a mechanistic analysis of the improvement of agility by the SAQ training. For example, the potential mechanisms of neuromuscular adaptation, improvement of movement coordination, or psychological factors (such as reaction speed) are not deeply discussed. It is recommended to supplement the analysis of the physiological and psychological mechanisms of the improvement of agility quality by the SAQ training, such as how to improve lower limb explosive power, coordination, and cognitive ability through specific training content.
Although many references are cited, it is only limited to listing the research results and lacks in-depth comparison. For example, whether there are differences in the effects of the SAQ training in Sanda and other sports (such as football) is not discussed in detail. It is recommended to analyze the differences in the adaptability of the SAQ training in Sanda and other sports and explore whether it needs to be adjusted according to the characteristics of Sanda.
The discussion part seldom mentions the specific content and deficiencies of traditional agility training, and fails to effectively illustrate the superiority of the SAQ training. It is recommended to increase the analysis of traditional agility training and compare it with the SAQ training to highlight the unique value of the SAQ training.
When analyzing the impact of the SAQ training on the special agility quality of Sanda students, it can be further combined with the technical characteristics and actual combat needs of Sanda to elaborate in detail the relationship between various test indicators (such as the 15 - second repeated ring jump test and the fist - leg combination cohesion test) and the special abilities of Sanda, and how the SAQ training can improve these indicators to enhance the performance of students in Sanda actual combat, strengthening the connection between the research results and practical applications.
Although the promotion value of the SAQ training in Sanda training is mentioned, no specific suggestions are provided, such as specific training plans, applicable populations, or implementation details. It is recommended to put forward practical operation suggestions for coaches and athletes, such as how to design the SAQ training program, how to combine it with Sanda technical training, and the promotion strategy in Chinese sports education.
References
The references should be placed after the conclusion and do not need to be annotated in the footnotes on each page. I did not seem to see the annotation positions of references 1 - 3 in the text. In addition, directly translating Chinese references into English references does not meet the requirements of SCI paper writing. English references should be used. In addition, the relevance of some citations to the research topic is weak. For example, a large number of SAQ studies on football and basketball are cited, but the degree of fit with the technical characteristics of Sanda is low. Some reference formats are not standardized, and the DOI formats are inconsistent, and some lack complete information.
We would like to thank the authors for their effort and dedication in preparing this manuscript, which addresses an important and innovative topic in Sanda sports. This study is the first of its kind to explore the impact of SAQ training on agility using a variety of tests. While the manuscript demonstrates great potential, we believe that certain improvements could help enhance its clarity and overall quality. These suggestions are intended to support the authors in presenting their valuable research in its best form.
I have found that the English language used in the manuscript requires some improvements. While the authors have used clear and easy-to-read English overall, some sentences lack clarity and may need revision for better readability and understanding. We encourage the use of commonly recognized terms throughout the manuscript. The topic focuses on agility, but the word 'sensitive' is frequently used, which could cause confusion. Additionally, there is an issue with abbreviations: each abbreviation should be written out in full the first time it appears, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. However, in this manuscript, both the term and its abbreviation are unnecessarily repeated in several places. Please review and make the necessary corrections.
The introduction of this study is weak. The authors should minimize the use of uncited information in the introduction section. This section is intended to provide the background and rationale for the study; therefore, the use of cited information is encouraged.
When publishing in prestigious journals like PeerJ, it is crucial to use reliable, recent, and peer-reviewed references. Wherever possible, the original sources for the tests used should be cited. There is also a wealth of high-quality, peer-reviewed research on Sanda available in reputable journals. However, the authors have relied heavily on references from master's theses, which is not appropriate for this level of publication.
The raw data have been made available as supplementary materials.
The experimental design in this study needs improvement and requires better organization.
The participant characteristics provided in this study are insufficient. The authors should include age and body fat measurements.
In our opinion, agility in combat sports is different from that in team sports, which require maximum and sub-maximum acceleration, deceleration, and reacceleration. The authors did well to enlist the help of Chinese experts familiar with the sport to select appropriate tests. However, we noticed the use of the Illinois Run Test. This test involves maximum running with direction changes over a total distance of approximately 60 meters. Can this be considered relevant to Sanda sport? The authors should provide an explanation.
The two tests described, 15s Repeated Challenge Arena Jump and Fist-Leg Combination Cohesion Test, appear to be novel and may lack validation or prior references in the existing literature. Are these tests designed to measure agility or power? The authors need to provide substantial clarification regarding these two tests.
Another ambiguity in this study is the test method. Most tests involve running, but no explanation is provided for the methods used in these tests (e.g., photocells or other devices).
The validity of the findings relies on the tests used. The authors need to provide clarifications, as mentioned earlier, regarding the tests employed in the study.
TITLE
We believe that “SAQ” is clear to most researchers and sports scientists, but not all readers may understand it. We suggest not abbreviating the phrase "Speed-Agility-Quickness" in the title.
ABSTRACT
Line 15: This line includes the first instance of the abbreviation. Write: speed, agility, and quickness (SAQ); thereafter, you can use SAQ exclusively.
Lines 17 to 23: Summarize this section and include the characteristics of the sample (age, height, weight, etc.).
Lines 24 to 34: This section is too long and overly detailed for the abstract. Rewrite and summarize it. For example: In the CG group, no significant difference was observed in the Pro Agility Test, Compass Pointer Test, and Repeated Ring Jump (p > 0.05) …
INTRODUCTION
Lines 50 to 64: Each sentence in this paragraph needs a citation (e.g., importance of agility, referenced studies, definition of agility, importance of SAQ, and definition of SAQ).
Line 65: Write SAQ only.
Lines 65 to 66: Who stated that SAQ training enhances agility in team sports? Include references here.
Line 67: Sanda –a Chinese combat sport– should be mentioned in the first paragraph.
Lines 68 to 69: Provide a reference for the importance of agility in Sanda sport.
MATERIALS & METHOD
- This section is not well-written. It contains too many subsections and repeated information (Like statistical method), which may distract the reader. You can organize it as follows:
2.1 Literature Method
2.2 Delphi Method
2.3 Experimental Method (Participants and Ethical Statement, Design and Procedures, Experimental Control, Data collection, and Training Programs. The training programs should be explained in more detail).
2.4 Statistical Analysis (This section should be well-explained. Authors should discuss all statistics used in the Delphi and experimental methods, including the normal distribution of data, ANOVA, and effect size in detail).
RESULTS
- Overall, the Results section is poorly written in its current form and difficult to follow. It should be revised and condensed for greater clarity. Avoid redundant repetition of information already presented in tables, such as mean, SD, and effect sizes.
- The writing style also requires improvement to enhance readability and coherence. For example: In the baseline test, there was no significant difference between the experimental group (7.914 ± 0.570 s) and the control group (8.162 ± 0.270 s), with inter-group F(1,22) = 1.850, P = 0.188 > 0.05, and effect size = 0.078. Instead, you could write: "No difference was observed between EG and CG in the baseline test (p>0.05)."
DISCUSSION
Lines 555 to 561: The main aim of your study is to determine the impact of SAQ training on agility quality in collegiate Sanda students. Therefore, you should focus on discussing the main findings of your study rather than the use of SAQ in ball sports.
- The discussion needs to be more comprehensive and deeper. The authors should explore the underlying mechanisms, compare findings with existing literature, and discuss the broader implications of the results.
TABLES
In the training program tables, the researchers wrote that the training intensity, measured by heart rate, ranges from 115 to 150 times. However, heart rate is measured in beats per minute, not by times. Also, in the experimental control subsection, it was written that the heart rate ranged from 120 to 150. Please correct this.
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.