Asymmetry in the Alignment of School Furniture and Anthropometric Measures: A Comparative Study Between Two Schools in Spain and Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

it is my pleasure to review your study.

Article titled "Asymmetry in the Alignment of School Furniture and Anthropometric Measures: A Comparative Study between Spain and Portugal" raises an interesting topic but I have a lot of doubts.

1.The reference format is correct, but the references are too old. Newer references should be added.

2.The abstract should be divided into individual sections according to the journal's guidelines.

3.It would be good to mention in the abstract the study group (mean age, SD, sex, etc.). The information n=500 is not sufficient in my opinion.

4.The introduction is written clearly and transparently. However, this section requires correction, the cited references are too old. Newer references should be replaced/added.

5.At the end of the manuscript, this section should be corrected:

"Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable."

In section 2.1, there is the information "All students who provided signed informed consent from their parents or guardians, as well as their own assent, were included in the study."

6.In my opinion the title of the manuscript should be changed. The study group comes from one school, one city in Spain and one city, one school in Portugal. Therefore, we cannot say that this population represents the whole country. This is not a multicenter study. Therefore, the limitations of the study should take this fact into account.

7.In Table 1-3 it should be more precisely defined what "Grade" means.

8.Did the study groups differ statistically significantly from each other? Can they be comparable?

9.Values ​​in tables 2-6 should be corrected. Commas should be replaced with periods.

10.All abbreviations in tables (even obvious ones) should be explained.

11.The discussion needs correction, it is based on old research. It is necessary to check the literature and cite newer publications.

Due to the above comments, the manuscript requires thorough revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language correction required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your work. The manuscript is generally well-structured and addresses an interesting topic at the intersection of education and ergonomics. I have a few comments that I hope will be useful. 

Lines. 82-87. Given the nature of the study, please consider adding research questions or hypotheses.

Lines 103-107. Are there any exclusion criteria applied, such as physical conditions, health status, etc.?  

Line 175. Please ensure consistent terminology throughout the manuscript. For example, the terms "man/woman" are used in Table 1, while "males/females" are used in the data analysis section. 

Lines 177-178. Please describe what and how the 'qualitative variables' were compared. 

A major concern is the numerous t-tests conducted. What techniques did the authors apply to reduce the risk of committing a Type I error? Additionally, effect sizes, such as Cohen’s d in this case, are highly recommended to be reported.  

Please consider improving the results section for better readability, prioritizing critical findings. On a side note, the results section could benefit from clearer visualizations (e.g., using a bar graph to illustrate some of the key results).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

thank you very much for the changes you have made.

The manuscript looks much better.

I have no further comments.

I recommend the manuscript for publication in this form.

Best regards,