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.
The authors have fully addressed the issues raised by the reviewers. I now recommend accepting this paper.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Arkaitz Zubiaga, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
One of the reviewers would like to see further improvements over a few issues. Please address these issues.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language should be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have revised as per the comments.
I appreciate the effort put into the revised version of the manuscript. However, I still have concerns regarding several aspects of the paper that require further revisions to enhance its quality and clarity.
The manuscript would benefit from meticulous proofreading to correct grammar errors and enhance language clarity. Some sections of the manuscript are somewhat difficult to comprehend. Engaging a fluent English speaker to refine the manuscript could help eliminate such errors and improve the overall readability. For instance:
"In older persons and those with neurological diseases like Parkinsonís disease or multiple sclerosis, balance problems are frequently an issue"
"The two are closely related since sensors are included in mobile devices to provide various functions and capabilities."
The issue with the quality of figures persists in the revised version. The text in these figures remains unclear due to low resolution, making it difficult for readers to discern the content. Improving the resolution and ensuring that the text is legible is essential for effective visual representation. Also, it is beneficial to ensure that figures also contribute effectively to the understanding of the content.
The manuscript repeats the exact same research questions in the introduction and the methodology without modification or rephrasing. To enhance the clarity and coherence of the paper, consider refining or rephrasing the research questions to avoid redundancy and to provide a fresh perspective on the study.
The discussion and conclusion sections of the manuscript lack depth. It is crucial to delve deeper into the findings, addressing their implications and significance more comprehensively. Additionally, explore existing gaps in the literature and suggest potential avenues for further research in these sections.
The author has revised the script and good to be accepted now.
Method and work flow is explained properly. Literature review is in detailed.
Author has added the comparison table and explained properly.
Recheck the submitted word file template.
Dear authors, you are advised to critically respond to all comments point by point, while preparing for the response.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The paper comprises several papers pertaining to the Functional Reach Test, comprehensively addressing various facets of the subject area. While the literature is well-presented, the criteria for selecting the final papers are not explicitly elucidated. Nonetheless, this paper holds merit as a valuable addition to the journal, albeit necessitating some modifications.
The papers align with the journal's Aims and Scope. Proper citation of resources is evident, and the chosen papers are succinctly and clearly summarized. Furthermore, the review is thoughtfully structured and presents information in an easily comprehensible manner.
The finding of the paper is on point, and can lead future researchers to have a broader view of the topic. The paper achieves this by comparing multiple approaches and showing what the selected papers have in common.
The paper is well structured and the goal is clear. However, since the main goal of the authors is to show statistics related to papers that study the FRT results, the images must be better. In fact, all the proposed images have a very low quality. This is the main issue, and must be addressed. Moreover, due to the nature of the paper, I believe that a reason on why each paper was selected must be included.
This manuscript endeavors to provide a literature review on sensor-based systems for measuring Functional Reach Test (FRT) results across diverse populations and conditions. The attempt to synthesize existing literature on this topic is commendable. Below are some areas of improvement and suggestions to enhance the clarity, coherence, and depth of the manuscript:
1. The introduction could benefit from a more detailed exposition of the research problem, the existing gap in the literature, and the research questions the review intends to address. Clearly articulating the purpose, scope, and objectives of the review, along with a justification for the chosen topic and methods, will provide readers with a solid foundation for understanding the review's significance.
2. It appears that Figures 1, 7, and 8 have a lower resolution which may hinder a clear understanding of the content. Improving the resolution and clarity of these figures would greatly enhance the visual representation of the findings.
3. There's a minor inconsistency in Line 122 regarding the number of studies reviewed. Rectifying this inconsistency will improve the accuracy and coherence of the manuscript.
1. While the manuscript presents a range of studies, a deeper level of analysis, synthesis, and discussion could provide more valuable insights. Ensuring that the conclusions are well-supported by the evidence and arguments presented in the review will enhance the credibility and contribution of the manuscript.
2. The results section is well-intentioned but may benefit from a more structured approach. Incorporating subtitles could aid in organizing the content more logically, and synthesizing or comparing the findings of the reviewed studies could offer more meaningful insights.
1. The results section is well-intentioned but may benefit from a more structured approach. Incorporating subtitles could aid in organizing the content more logically, and synthesizing or comparing the findings of the reviewed studies could offer more meaningful insights.
2. The discussion section could delve deeper into how the findings address the research questions and contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Discussing the implications and applications of the results, alongside suggesting directions for future research, will enrich the manuscript. Acknowledging the limitations of the review and exploring the reasons behind the preference for certain sensors in more depth could provide a more comprehensive understanding.
The overall contents of the paper are satisfactory; however, the author might consider reorganizing the information in a more coherent and visually appealing way. The abstract should be enhanced by including the findings of the present study. The paper is written at a proficient level of English and demonstrates a comprehensive comprehension of the explored topic.
The study technique session would benefit from enhancements such as the inclusion of a diagram and a comprehensive explanation of how the chosen technique differs from others. Additionally, it would be valuable to elaborate on the anticipated results of the study. In general, the document contains an adequate amount of material for the intended audience. The survey methodology should be thoroughly discussed, including its influence and results. The sources have been appropriately referenced. The organization of the paper could be improved.
The conclusion and discussion sections could be enhanced by addressing existing gaps and suggesting potential avenues for further research. An argument that is deemed acceptable in order to fulfill the objectives of a research study.
The length of the written conclusions is insufficient and should be expanded to provide a comprehensive explanation, including a discussion of future directions.
Improve the Abstract, Methodology, Discussion, and Conclusion sections.
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.