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 taking the time to respond to reviewer comments. I am very pleased to be able to accept this publication. I congratulate you on your research and am sure this will make a very useful contribution to the area of cricket research.
Thank you for taking the time to revise the paper. For the most part the reviewers are happy with the paper, however some very minor changes are requested. Please see the attached track changes document for direction.
I am happy with the revised version of the paper.
I am happy with the revised version of the paper.
I am happy with the revised version of the paper.
Thank you for revising the paper.
The paper with suggested track changes is well written, just a few minor edits added in reviewer track changes
No comment
Data is robust and sound. Well presented.
Happy with additions to discussion as per reviewer requests.
Changes to paper have added quality to research reporting and suggestions for applied use, well done.
See attached manuscript with very minor track changes included.
Please address all reviewer comments. Additionally, please look at all tables and figures and ensure axes titles, labels, etc. are adequate and provide sufficient information. Please also use, 'sex' if you are referring to biological differences, or 'gender' if referring to socially constructed differences, in accordance with the WHO definition of sex and gender.
As per reviewer comments please also ensure you have consistency throughout the manuscript with respect to APA formatting, hyphens, etc.
See attached comments.
See attached comments.
See attached comments.
Please see attached comments.
The paper is generally well written, with the introduction and background providing good context for the undertaking of the research.
Literature referenced is relevant. Figures and tables are well constructed and easy to read.
The following needs to be addressed:
a) check consistency of research citations for APA format
b) check for consistency in use of terminology through out the article, that is, correctly introduce relative age effect followed by acronym in brackets then use this throughout article and not interchanging
c) check for consistent use of hyphens throughout the article when using right-hand, left-hand etc
No comment
Data is robust, statistically sound and controlled.
Findings are of benefit to improving literature however would have liked to have seen more discussion of findings in relation to applications for talent identification, suggestions on how these findings could influence training design for improving acquisition of skill generally and in the right- hand vs left-hand mismatch scenario
Well researched and well structured paper. Discussion could have been broadened to include practical applications of findings to pathway managers, high performance coaches, talent identification personnel and managers
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.