The Impact of the SARS-COVID-19 Lockdowns on the Subjectively Perceived Performance Level of Amateur Athletes after Returning to the Gyms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting issue and we value the effort that you put into this study. I think that this research is able to get the reader interested and work together on the topic. I think this article has some potential but there are some critical flaws as described below.

Introduction. Supplement the introduction with new research in this area. Give an example of work that showed that the Covid-19 pandemic contributed to reduced fitness or vice versa. Can you suggest a hypothesis based on those research. What is the main question addressed by your research? You wrote that you want to identify factors that can aid in managing future facility closures effectively. In the introduction you do not indicate what factors you want to identify. What parts do you consider original or relevant for that field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address? Specially you should refer to works in this area, e.g. Ripley-Gonzalez JW, Zhou N, Zeng T, You B, Zhang W, Liu J, Dong Y, Guo Y, Dun Y, Liu S. The long-term impact of the COVID- 19 pandemic on physical fitness in young adults: a historical control study. Sci Rep. 2023 Sep 18;13(1):15430. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-42710-0.

Line 56 - Is the aim of the work: Using this self-assessment data, we aim to identify factors that can aid in managing future facility closures effectively. It seems to me that there are no results regarding this research goal.

Methodology. How do you assess the accuracy of the data provided? Has your survey been tested to assess its effectiveness?

Results. Complete the tables with the values of statistical tests. Consider presenting some data in figures rather than just tables. Line 125 - result p=0 what does it mean?

Discussion. The discussion is weak. You basically report your results . Refer to the numerous literature on this topic. Compare your results with other researchers. You did not identify factors that could help effectively manage future facility closures - that was the purpose of this research. However, similar studies have already been published in the UK: Elliott, J., Munford, L., Ahmed, S., Littlewood, A. & Todd, C. The impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on physical activity among older adults: evidence from longitudinal date in the UK. Bmc Public Health 22, ARTN 1802 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14156-y (2022). In my opinion, you did not refer to enough publications in this area.

Author Response

Review 1

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting issue and we value the effort that you put into this study. I think that this research is able to get the reader interested and work together on the topic. I think this article has some potential but there are some critical flaws as described below.

Introduction. Supplement the introduction with new research in this area. Give an example of work that showed that the Covid-19 pandemic contributed to reduced fitness or vice versa. Can you suggest a hypothesis based on those research. What is the main question addressed by your research? You wrote that you want to identify factors that can aid in managing future facility closures effectively. In the introduction you do not indicate what factors you want to identify. What parts do you consider original or relevant for that field? What specific gap in the field does the paper address? Specially you should refer to works in this area, e.g. Ripley-Gonzalez JW, Zhou N, Zeng T, You B, Zhang W, Liu J, Dong Y, Guo Y, Dun Y, Liu S. The long-term impact of the COVID- 19 pandemic on physical fitness in young adults: a historical control study. Sci Rep. 2023 Sep 18;13(1):15430. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-42710-0.

• We have significantly expanded the introduction and included the literature that has been published in the meantime. Thank you very much for the well-written paper and the significant additional gain, both for our paper and our knowledge in this area.

Line 56 - Is the aim of the work: Using this self-assessment data, we aim to identify factors that can aid in managing future facility closures effectively. It seems to me that there are no results regarding this research goal.

• As part of the revision of the introduction, we once again specified the aim of the work. Our main focus was to find out which of the factors recorded in the questionnaire led to a better or worse subjectively perceived fitness level. Factors such as increasing age show that fitness programs offered online resulted in the older population not being reached because, for example, they did not have the internet or were difficult to use it.

Methodology. How do you assess the accuracy of the data provided? Has your survey been tested to assess its effectiveness?

• We carried out an extensive statistical survey by a mathematician on the team who specializes in big data science. In advance of the study, we calculated the population to be tested and were able to significantly exceed this goal of a representative population for Germany.

Results. Complete the tables with the values of statistical tests. Consider presenting some data in figures rather than just tables. Line 125 - result p=0 what does it mean?

• We changed that in the results section.

Discussion. The discussion is weak. You basically report your results . Refer to the numerous literature on this topic. Compare your results with other researchers. You did not identify factors that could help effectively manage future facility closures - that was the purpose of this research. However, similar studies have already been published in the UK: Elliott, J., Munford, L., Ahmed, S., Littlewood, A. & Todd, C. The impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on physical activity among older adults: evidence from longitudinal date in the UK. Bmc Public Health 22, ARTN 1802 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14156-y (2022). In my opinion, you did not refer to enough publications in this area.

• The discussion has been comprehensively revised. We have reviewed the literature again and incorporated more literature into our work. Many thanks for this reference. In addition, we have expanded the conclusion so that the value of this work is hopefully more apparent.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reading and thoroughly reviewing our work. We hope to have implemented the comment adequately and look forward to your feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for considering J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol for submission this manuscript.

The manuscript has critical points that should be reviewed and corrected so that the article can be considered for peer review again. First, the research topic is somewhat outdated and its practical applications lose some practical validity when compared to the time of the SARS-COVID-19 Lockdowns.

Specifically, there are other critical points that you should consider in order to rewrite the manuscript and expand the research:
- Introduction is short and poorly founded, with no concrete understanding of the research gap and the objectives of the study. The methodology is superficial and poorly substantiated; it fails to describe the characteristics of the sample, the selection criteria, the methodological processes, the variables, etc. The results are only descriptive statistics (absolute relative frequencies), and the discussion of the results is poor and not well supported by scientific evidence. The conclusions are also very general and do not express the key outcomes of the study.

Please reconsider an extensive revision and deepening of the manuscript so that it can be considered for peer review.

Best regards.

Author Response

Review 2:

Dear Authors, 

Thank you very much for considering J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol for submission this manuscript.

The manuscript has critical points that should be reviewed and corrected so that the article can be considered for peer review again. First, the research topic is somewhat outdated and its practical applications lose some practical validity when compared to the time of the SARS-COVID-19 Lockdowns.

Specifically, there are other critical points that you should consider in order to rewrite the manuscript and expand the research:
- Introduction is short and poorly founded, with no concrete understanding of the research gap and the objectives of the study.

• We have significantly expanded the introduction and included the literature that has been published in the meantime.

The methodology is superficial and poorly substantiated; it fails to describe the characteristics of the sample, the selection criteria, the methodological processes, the variables, etc.

• We have clearly formulated the methods section and presented the data collection procedure in detail.

The results are only descriptive statistics (absolute relative frequencies), and the discussion of the results is poor and not well supported by scientific evidence. The conclusions are also very general and do not express the key outcomes of the study.

• The discussion has been comprehensively revised. We have reviewed the literature again and incorporated more literature into our work. Many thanks for this reference. In addition, we have expanded the conclusion so that the value of this work is hopefully more apparent.

Please reconsider an extensive revision and deepening of the manuscript so that it can be considered for peer review.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reading and thoroughly reviewing our work. We hope to have implemented the comment adequately and look forward to your feedback

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for changes in the article and correcting the text. Currently, after the changes, the article can be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

After the first round of revisions, it can be seen that the authors try to incorporate the peer reviews into the manuscript. I therefore recommend accepting the article in its present form.

Congratulations.