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.
Thank you for your careful and thorough revisions. The reviewer has confirmed that all comments have been fully addressed, and I am also satisfied with the clarity and quality of the updated manuscript. I have no further concerns.
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript is accepted for publication. Congratulations, and thank you for your thoughtful work during the review process.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Mike Climstein, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thank you for addressing the reviewer’s comments, and congratulations to the authors on their work.
Thank you for addressing the reviewer’s comments, and congratulations to the authors on their work.
Thank you for addressing the reviewer’s comments, and congratulations to the authors on their work.
Thank you for addressing the reviewer’s comments, and congratulations to the authors on their work.
**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 preparing your next revision, please ensure that your manuscript is reviewed either by a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter, or by a professional editing service. PeerJ offers language editing services; if you are interested, you may contact us at [email protected] for pricing details. Kindly include your manuscript number and title in your inquiry. – PeerJ Staff
1. The number of respondents is relatively small, so the author should write about the implications of this limitation and suggestions for research with a larger and more diverse sample.
2. The discussion could be deepened by emphasizing the relationship between BAT results and long-term cardiovascular adaptation, not just short-term reliability.
-
BAT is reliable, but has not been validated against standard aerobic tests, so its validity should also be measured.
Your research is very interesting, and hopefully, it can be developed further.
I would recommend reconsidering and rephrasing the title of the manuscript. In its current form, the word aerobic appears twice, which feels somewhat redundant. It is already evident that an aerobic test is being used to measure aerobic performance, so repeating the term may not be necessary. In addition, I do not think it is essential to include the abbreviation (BAT) in the title, and the phrase test retest could also be omitted.
Perhaps something along the lines of “Application of a ballroom aerobic test protocol for assessing performance in standard style dancesport athletes” would read more smoothly. It does not have to be exactly this phrasing, but I believe the title could be refined to be more concise and polished.d
Regarding the abstract,
I suggest using the term dancesport rather than simply dance. This terminology is now more widely used in the literature and better reflects the fact that dance in this context is recognized as a sport.
In the Methods section, I recommend presenting the participants’ characteristics separately for men and women, rather than mixing all the data together. Variables such as age, body mass, and similar measures should ideally be reported by sex to provide clearer descriptive information.
Introduction
At line 105, the sentence “Along with aesthetic and technical requirements, the complexity of choreography makes physical preparedness just as important as skill development (Ngo et al., 2024)” could be strengthened by adding further references that provide additional support from the dancesport literature and improve the context of the statement.
At line 105, the phrase “Although dance is comprised of many styles, physiological capabilities are equally important to endure the demanding daily schedules of training and competition performance” should be revised. It would be more accurate to refer to dance disciplines rather than styles. While “styles” is often used informally in dance terminology, in reality, these are distinct disciplines. I recommend making this adjustment here and consistently throughout the manuscript.
At lines 107–108, the statement “Evidence suggests that aerobic capacity is one of the key determinants for success in dance (Smol & Fredyk, 2012)” could be further strengthened by providing complementary evidence from dancesport, highlighting the importance of endurance capacities for performance.
At lines 123–124, the statement “In dance, measuring aerobic capacity with objective measures (heart rate monitors, ergometries) is the cornerstone for planning training programs at the individual level (Tiemens et al., 2023)” could be reinforced.
This paper highlights the importance of monitoring cardiorespiratory fitness with objective methods and provides additional context for the argument.
In lines 142–145, the text states: “Despite the fact that all tests exhibited ‘good’ to ‘very good’ test–retest reliability properties, findings from these studies cannot be generalized to other dance styles. Most of them recruited ballet (Twitchett et al., 2011) or contemporary (Wyon et al., 2003) dancers, whose training routines and movement patterns are different from those of standard dance practitioners.”
I would recommend extending this discussion by noting that there are studies in the literature that specifically evaluate effort in standard style dancesport athletes and use physiological tremor as a biomarker.
Materials and methods
At lines 190–191, please briefly clarify why both dance couples and a single male participant were included in the study. It would also be useful to explain whether the couples performed solo choreographies or danced together in pairs during the test.
At lines 192–193, I suggest providing the competitive dance classes of the participants. This information would make it easier for other researchers to replicate the study with athletes of a comparable level.
Regarding the description of the BAT protocol, the lack of detail on the specific dance figures performed by the couples greatly limits the replicability of the study. Ideally, all pairs should have performed the same figures, which are clearly described in the World DanceSport Federation technique books. In practice, couples usually do not improvise their own choreographies during such testing but rather perform set choreographies—unless the participants were very advanced, which has not been specified earlier.
Moreover, in a test–retest design, there is also a risk that during the second trial, couples or individual dancers might have simplified the difficulty of the figures. Please clarify this aspect and describe the protocol in a way that allows other researchers to replicate the study as closely as possible.
Results
I have no specific concerns regarding the description of the Results section.
In the Discussion section, I recommend addressing the issue of why dance music was not used in the protocol, especially given that music tempo can easily be adjusted with computer software. It also remains unclear whether the participants performed solo choreographies or danced together in pairs, which should be clarified.
In addition, please discuss the relationship between increasing choreography tempo and the quality of dance performance. Some dance figures, when performed too quickly, may become technically impossible to execute properly—particularly in a partnered context. What was the rationale for excluding music, and how might this choice have affected both performance and ecological validity? I believe this is an important aspect that deserves further consideration in the discussion.
Overall comment: I would like to thank the authors for their work on this important topic in dancesport. I sincerely hope the article will successfully pass the review process. The subject is highly relevant and, in my view, this manuscript has the potential to become an important contribution to the global dancesport community.
After addressing the issues raised in my comments, I believe the article could be suitable for publication.
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.