Review History

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.

View examples of open peer review.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on October 24th, 2018 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on November 26th, 2018.
  • The first revision was submitted on December 10th, 2018 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on December 11th, 2018.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Dec 11, 2018 · Academic Editor


You have now addressed the comments of the reviewers and I am happy to accept the paper for publication in PeerJ.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Nov 26, 2018 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

The two reviewers were highly impressed with the manuscript describing the results of your study. Please take on board the comments of reviewer number one, particularly with respect to their general comments regarding the discussion in your resubmission.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

Line 168: Correct section as session
Line 176: Correct a supine position to supine position
Line 339-340: Rephrase the sentence

Experimental design

Well articulated. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.

Validity of the findings

Statistically sound.

Additional comments

Interesting work.
The section on discussion would be solid if you could add more explanations citing articles in accord with your findings.


Basic reporting

The English language used is correct. The paper is provided a clear background of the topic. The structure of article with all figures and tables are also clearly and understandably.

Experimental design

The problem of this research is clear, and the questions are well defined. The described methods gives good information about data analysis used in paper. The paper geted ethical approval.

Validity of the findings

The results are well described and presented. The conclusions and explanation in Discussion are well stated, and all is linked to original research question and problem.
Authors presented the limitation of their study and put some directions for next studies in this research area.

Additional comments

In next studies please try to find correlation of multi-ball training with overall balance or postural stability. You can used some dynamic tests as Biodex balance system or some similar. In this study you provide to us info's about CoP distribution during the testing procedures.But it will be good to know the post effects of multi-ball training on the overall balance after few sessions of multi-ball training.

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.