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. This manuscript is ready for publication.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
-
-
-
Thank you for submitting your revisions to the paper. The revisions to the original paper have been appropriate.
**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.
**Language Note:** When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
I believe it demonstrates a strong overall understanding of the subject matter. Additionally, it includes appropriate tables, figures, and references.
I think the experimental design is relatively well structured, but I would like to have some answers on a few points.
Comment 1 : [Line 64] Would it be possible to elaborate further on the multifactorial contributors to the onset and persistence of NSCLBP in the Introduction? Including a broader range of influencing factors could strengthen the background rationale.
Comment 2 : [Line 69-70] Could you clarify why bodybuilding exercises are associated with a higher risk of musculoskeletal injuries, including muscle strains, tendinitis, and NSLBP? Providing this context would enhance the reader's understanding of the problem.
Comment 3 : [Line 84-85] Could you provide a reference to support the statement, “Its reliability and precision have made it widely utilized in both research and clinical practice”?
Comment 4 : [Line 188] Could you clarify the rationale for setting the inter-electrode distance to 3 cm in the TMG measurement? Was this based on previous literature or a specific methodological consideration?
I think that most of the research findings are documented and presented in a valid manner. However, I would like to have some answers on a few points.
Comment 1 : [Line 377-379] Could you specify which characteristic of static muscle contraction the contraction time (Tc) represents, and provide appropriate references to support the interpretation presented in lines 377–379? This would help substantiate the claim regarding neuromuscular control and fatigue.
* Parameters related to the severity of illness and quality of life measures are not mentioned either in the aim of the summary or in the title.
* There is no information about the evaluations that were made during rest or movement in the method section. The authors should add this information to the method section of the abstract.
*Which evaluations are static or dynamic? There is no information about it here in the method section, either.
* Introduction part: No examples from the current literature have been mentioned. Examples from current literature should be added, along with what will be done differently from these studies.
Method:
*Line 125: It is recommended that a flow chart be added to this section.
*Line 169: There is no information about this measurement in the abstract section or title.
*There are so many numbers in the results section that the text is unreadable. It is recommended that the data provided in the table be removed for the sake of readability.
Line 360: Before this heading, the purpose of the entire article, the important results obtained, and how this study fills a gap in the literature should be stated. Then, the subheadings should be listed in order.
Line 398: In addition to stating that shorter Ts observed in the NSLBP group may indicate muscle fatigue, weakness, or neuromuscular dysfunction, the authors are advised to add their thoughts on the possible causes of this condition.
Line 537: I don't think it's right to mention this as a limitation, since the bodybuilding trainees were selected by you. The aim is not to make generalizations, but to compare the contractile properties of muscles in bodybuilding trainees with back pain with controls and to examine the relationship between tensiomyographic properties and isokinetic muscle contractile properties.
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.