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.
Congratulations on completing the revisions as suggested by the two expert reviewers. We are now satisfied that you have addressed all minor concerns with the initial manuscript and that it is now suitable for publication in PeerJ.
I am comfortable with the revised document and/or rebuttals.
I am comfortable with the revised document and/or rebuttals.
I am comfortable with the revised document and/or rebuttals.
I am comfortable with the revised document and/or rebuttals. Well done turning over the revised document so quickly.
ok
ok
new
no further comments
The two reviewers and I were happy with most aspects of your study and submitted manuscript; especially as it did not just concentrate on physiological processes that may underlie the gender difference. Please amend to the reviewers comments in your revised version.
Please also note the annotated manuscript from Reviewer 1, which contains extensive feedback
At first glance of the title and abstract I felt the paper may not be of interest and not contribute to the current body of knowledge related to pacing and specifically, gender differences in pacing. However, the paper was well written, argued logically, and presented the methods and results in a way I found drew me in. I was particularly impressed with the Discussion and conclusions.
The paper is comprehensive and complete and is a "pass" for me.
I hope the attached detailed feedback may enhance the final paper.
The ethical requirements were met. The research design, methodology and statistical analyses were appropriate.
As above, the research questions and hypotheses were validly tested, reported and discussed in light of previous research findings. The paper makes an original contribution the current research focused on both pacing and gender differences in pacing.
I have provided detailed feedback and suggestions in the pdf attached. I hope they assist the authors in the final submission.
No Comments
No Comments
No Comments
Fast men slow more than fast women in a 10 kilometer road race
The authors investigated whether men slow faster down compared to women as they had already shown for marathon running. Interestingly, the found the same result in a shorter race such as 10 km road running race
Minor comments
Line 70: Please insert the corresponding references for the marathons in Warsaw and Houston
Line 102: Please insert a hypothesis
Line 196: Please differentiate better when sometimes is
Line 322: Please insert the corresponding references for the marathons in Warsaw and Houston
Line 329: Please change the citation
Line 426: Please insert the practical applications for athletes and coaches
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.