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 Authors,
Thank you and congratulations on your work during the review process, addressing all of the reviewers' comments.
Best wishes for the continued development of your good work.
Best regards.
[# 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
Dear Authors,
Please revise the manuscript considering the minor suggestions.
Thank you.
Best regards.
**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.
The writing and reporting style are adequate. Raw data were not provided.
The study design is not clear. The authors have to explain the methodology, I suggest they use the STROBE checklist to write the methodology.
Too many tables and figures. More details later in the review.Overall, I think the current approach and data presented are flawed and misleading.
The aim of this study was to connections between physical fitness and drop vertical jump biomechanics in basketball players. The topic is interesting, but not novel. I think the authors have to make an effort to improve the manuscript because it is now insuitable for publication.
Introduction
In my opinion, the introduction is too long and needs to be shortened and condensed.
The content in lines 60-61 needs to be supplemented - discuss this problem also based on: 10.37190/ABB-02573-2024-01.
Please number your research hypotheses.
Methods
1. The authors have to explain: What kind of study is it? Cross-sectional, case-control…?
2. The authors need to explain the procedure for recruiting subjects, and the procedure for collecting data. Where are these subjects from? Who collected data? For what population is the study group representative?
3. The authors must add sociodemographic and clinical variables of the sample (sex, BMI, levels of education, etc…).
4. There is no information on whether the subjects participated in training regularly, what exercises the training included, etc.)
5. Detailed study inclusion and exclusion criteria should be provided.
6. The variables need major explanation. What are the independent, dependent, and confusing variables?
7. Please provide the scale used to interpret the strength of the studied correlations.
Results:
1. The descriptive statistics provided are insufficient. Please also provide medians, minimum, and maximum values. Comparing the arithmetic means to the median will allow the reader to understand the distribution of values of the studied variables (symmetric or skewed).
2. Table 3 and 4 - what does SE mean?
3. For clarity, descriptive statistics for all analyzed variables should be placed in one summary table. Please place the data from Tables 2-4 in one summary table.
4. For each value of the Pearson linear correlation coefficient, please provide the p-value.
5. Instead of Figures 4-12, please provide one table (please present all results in tabular form).
Discussion
1. Authors must extensively revise Discussion section. They present a brief summary of several published studies, but do not confront them with their own findings.
2. Please include in the Discussion information which of the research hypotheses formulated by the authors were confirmed by analyses and which were not.
3. There is no smooth ending to the Discussion - please complete it.
Conclusions
The conclusions should be rephrased so that they address each of the research hypotheses.
Additional comments
After the authors respond to these points, I will be able to comment conclusively and make the final decision.
Dear Authors,
Please revise the manuscript considering the minor suggestions.
Thank you.
Best regards.
The authors do a great job at presenting the clinical test and have improved on the clarity of how all of these tests were performed. Patients have cleared up the references as well as the clarity of the introduction.
Changes in the wording of the clinical test have improved the clarity. Inclusion of a table with bridge progression is helpful.
The experimental design is appropriate.
These findings are potentially interesting as they connect the complex video assessment of biomechanics with more clinical tests. There are limits, as these techniques will not allow specific understandings of joint involvement, only outcomes of the test.
For example, the Y balance test cannot directly tell us the involvement of the ankle, knee, and hip in the test only the reach distance.
This article is well thought out and well presented.
All comments have been addressed.
-
-
**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.
Overall, this was a well-written article that addressed a novel question with a direct analysis.
More support for why the functional tests were chosen over others should be presented.
More consideration should be taken to lessen the number of functional tests performed. Or, the discussion should focus on how these results show that the use of only a few is beneficial.
The abbreviations for results are distracting throughout the results sections.
Line 77 - Did the study [20] relate jumping to balance? Review that citation throughout.
Line 78 - Did study [20] evaluate injury risk? Review citation.
Line 398 - Study [30] analyzed findings during a squat, not a jumping task. These represent 2 very different task constraints. Citations need to be updated or analysis needs to be considered. This citation is used multiple times and needs to be addressed throughout.
Line 447 - At least in the USA, this representation of the bridge exercise is not as common. A better, maybe visual representation of this progression could be helpful.
Line 494 - Throughout the article, there are times where vertical jump performance or ability are mentioned, but that is not measured or provided here. Biomechanics of the jump are assessed, and vertical jump biomechanics should be used throughout.
Line 107 - Please clarify footwear use. Were the shoes the subjects' own footwear, and did they wear the same pairs throughout the study? Or were the shoes standardized for all subjects?
Line 123 - Is patient selection and gender discussed anywhere as a potential limitation?
See above. Finding abbreviations makes interpretation challenging.
Were any continuous kinematic variables collected? Pre-contact behavior may also be of interest in observing preparatory strategies.
Well done. The writing was very good.
The authors explore the relationship between selected physical fitness and drop vertical jumps mechanics, which has significant implications for sports performance. One major concern is how the manuscript was written. The study raises interesting questions, but the methodological limitations make it difficult to draw firm conclusions.
One primary concern is the physical fitness assessment selected for this study and how those assessments may influence the findings. In addition, there was no information related to the assessment order, sample size calculation, and the lack of participants may raise questions about the validity of the conclusions.
Although the study did claim some interesting findings, the relationship's nature of the data does not establish causation and meaningful practical implications.
Future studies could strengthen their methodology by utilising more laboratory-based equipment, e.g., isokinetic, EMG, etc., and using more robust statistical analyses, e.g., SPM
Please see the additional comments.
Please see the additional comments.
Please see the additional comments.
The title “The relationship between physical fitness and drop vertical jump biomechanics in male college basketball players” explores the physical fitness of male college basketball players and the vertical drop (DVJ) biomechanics relationship. By analyzing both health-related and skill-related physical fitness indicators in conjunction with DVJ kinematics and kinetics, this work contributes to practical screening and injury prevention strategies in athletic populations. The manuscript is generally well-written, the methodology is clearly presented, and the findings are supported by appropriate data analysis. However, there are still a few minor issues related to clarity, interpretation, and reporting that should be addressed to improve the overall quality and scientific rigor of the manuscript. Detailed comments are provided as follows:
1. Although relevant literature is cited, the novelty of correlating specific health-related fitness components with DVJ biomechanics could be more explicitly emphasized.
2. At the end of the introduction, the research hypothesis "health-related and skill-related physical fitness were correlated with DVJ performance" is rather general. It is recommended to clearly indicate "which kind of DVJ biomechanical parameters" (such as joint Angle, GRF, joint torque, etc.) to improve the pertinence and testability of research purposes.
3. Please provide a rationale for limiting the sample to left-leg dominant participants. Could this influence the generalizability of results?
4. In addition to p-values and R², providing standardized effect sizes (e.g., Cohen's d, partial η²) for key correlations would strengthen the interpretation. It is recommended to specify whether a multiple collinearity test (such as VIF) is performed in the multiple regression model to confirm that there is no significant redundant relationship between the included variables, to enhance the reliability of the model results.
5. Acronyms like ADkneX, MkneX, MankX, etc., should be defined upon first use in the results (or in a figure/table legend) to improve reader accessibility.
6. Although male athletes were studied, many biomechanical explanations rely heavily on studies of female athletes. Acknowledge this limitation and avoid overgeneralization.
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.