Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on May 13th, 2016 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on June 3rd, 2016.
  • The first revision was submitted on June 14th, 2016 and was reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on June 20th, 2016.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

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.

·

Basic reporting

I am comfortable with the revised document and/or rebuttals.

Experimental design

I am comfortable with the revised document and/or rebuttals.

Validity of the findings

I am comfortable with the revised document and/or rebuttals.

Comments for the author

I am comfortable with the revised document and/or rebuttals. Well done turning over the revised document so quickly.

·

Basic reporting

ok

Experimental design

ok

Validity of the findings

new

Comments for the author

no further comments

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

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

·

Basic reporting

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.

Experimental design

The ethical requirements were met. The research design, methodology and statistical analyses were appropriate.

Validity of the findings

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.

Comments for the author

I have provided detailed feedback and suggestions in the pdf attached. I hope they assist the authors in the final submission.

·

Basic reporting

No Comments

Experimental design

No Comments

Validity of the findings

No Comments

Comments for the author

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.